755 GI/2016

(821)

foÙk ea=kky;

(foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 26 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 339-—¶LVS.M&vi bafM;k¸ ;kstuk ds fy, Í.k

xkajVh fuf/ dh LFkkiuk ds fy, eaf=keaMy ds vuqeksnu (ekeyk la-

10@01@2016) ds vuqlj.k esa] fuf/ ds O;oLFkkid ds :i esa ;g

foHkkx fuf/ ds izca/u lfefr dk ,rn~}kjk xBu djrk gS] ftlesa

fuEufyf[kr 'kkfey gSa %—

(i)

lfpo] foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx

—vè;{k

(insu)

(ii)

vè;{k ,oa izca/ funs'kd]

—lnL;

Hkkjrh; y?kq m|ksx fodkl cSad

(iii)

vè;{k] Hkkjrh; cSad la?k

—lnL;

(iv)

eq[; dk;Zikyd vf/dkjh] jk"Vªh;

—lnL;

Í.k xkajVh U;klh daiuh fy-

¹iQk- la- 28@02@2016&vkbZ,iQ&II º

¯l/q fiYyS] funs'kd

jftLVªh la- Mh- ,y- (,u) 04@0007@2003µ05

REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

izkf/dkj ls izdkf'kr

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

lkIrkfgd

WEEKLY

la- 9]

ubZ fnYyh] iQjojh 21—iQjojh 27] 2016] 'kfuokj@iQkYxqu 2—iQkYxqu 8] 1937

No. 9]

NEW DELHI, FEBRUARY 21—FEBRUARY 27, 2016, SATURDAY/PHALGUNA 2—PHALGUNA 8, 1937

bl Hkkx esa fHkUu i`"B la[;k nh tkrh gS ftlls fd ;g i`Fkd ladyu ds :i esa j[kk tk lds

Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation

Hkkx II—[k.M 3—mi&[k.M (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

Hkkjr ljdkj ds ea=kky;ksa (j{kk ea=kky; dks NksM+dj) }kjk tkjh fd, x, lkafof/d vkns'k vkSj vf/lwpuk,a

Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 26th February, 2016

S.O. 339.—Pursuant to the Cabinet approval (Case

No. 10/01/2016) for establishmemnt of Credit Guarantee

Fund for “Stand-Up-India” Scheme, this Department as

settlor of the Fund hereby constitutes a Management

Committee of the Fund consisting of the following :—

(i) Secretary, (Department of Financial

—Chairman

Services)

(ex-officio)

(ii) CMD, Small Industries Development

—Member

Bank of India

(iii) Chairman, Indian Banks’ Association

—Member

(iv) CEO, National Credit Guarantee

—Member

Trustee Company Ltd.

[F. No. 28/02/2016-IF-II]

SINDHU PILLAI, Director

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 27] 2016@iQkYxqu 8] 1937

841

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer

CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 21st December, 2015

Reference: (CGITA) No. 7/2006

1. The Zonal Manager,

Bank of India,

Zonal Office,

Gujart Zone,

Bhadra,

Ahmedabad-380001

...First Party

Vs.

Their Workman,

Sh. Dhirubhai Ukabhai Ahir

At & PO Satem,

Tal. Navsari,

Dist. Valsad,

Gujarat

...Second Party

For the First Party

For the Second Party

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-12012/113/94-

IR(B-II) dated 05.01.2006 referred the dispute for

adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the claim of disputant Shri Dhirubhai

Ukabhai Ahir that he was employed by the Bank of

India, Satem Branch as part-time sweeper during the

period from May,1983 to 18.12.1987 is correct? If so,

whether the action of the management of Bank of

India to terminate him from service is legal and

justified and what relief is the disputant concerned

entitled to?”

This reference dates back to 05.01.2005. Both the

parties were served by the registered post. Neither of the

parties have not filed their statement of claim and written

stated. Thus, it appears that neither of the parties are willing

to proceed with the reference. Thus, Tribunal has no option

but to dismiss the reference in default of the parties.

The reference is dismissed in default of the parties.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 356-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk

14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lsaVªy cSad vkWiQ

bafM;k ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 189@2006)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18-02-2016 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@97@2006&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 18th February, 2016

S.O. 356.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 189/2006) of the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of Central Bank

of India and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 18.02.2016.

[No. L-12011/97/2006-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer

CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 10th December, 2015

Reference: (CGITA) No. 189/2006

The Regional Manager,

Central Bank of India,

Regional Office,

Bhadra, Lal Darwaja,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

...First Party

Vs.

Their workman,

Sh. Kamlesh N. Thakkar,

Through the General Secretary,

Gujarat Labour Union,

24/3, Ellora Commercial Centre,

Behind Relief Cinema,

Salapas Raod,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)-380001

...Second Party

842

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 27, 2016/PHALGUNA 8, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

For the First Party

: Sh. K.J. Macwan, Advocate

For the Second Party

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-12011/97/2006-

IR(B-II)) dated 14.11.2006 referred the dispute for

adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the following action of the management

of Central Bank of India, Ahmedabad in respect of

Sh. Kamalesh N. Thakkar is legal or justified? If not,

what relief the workman is entitled to and to what

extent? (a) Non-regularisation of leave period from

(1) 30.09.1999 to 18.10.1999 (2) 24.04.2002 to 17.03.2002

(b) Imposition of penalty by reducing 2 increment

without proper domestic inquiry. (c) Imposition of

suspension order dated 29.12.2005 without

mentioning any reasons.”

This reference dates back to 14.11.2006 and was

registered in the 24.04.2007. Both the parties were issued

the notice. First party (Central Bank of India) filed the

vakalatnama (Ext.8) but second party did not appear and

also did not filed the statement of claim. It is old reference.

Second party appears to be not willing to proceed with the

reference. Therefore, Tribunal has no option but to dismiss

the reference.

Reference is dismissed in default of the second party.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 357-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk

14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dkaMyk iÙku U;kl

ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 180@2013)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18-02-2016 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&37011@11@2013&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 18th February, 2016

S.O. 357.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 180/2013) of the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the management of Kandla Port Trust

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on

18.02.2016.

[No. L-37011/11/2013-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer,

CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 10th December, 2015

Reference: (CGITA) No. 180/2013

The Chairman,

Kandla Port Trust,

Administrative Office,

Post Box No. 50,

Gandhidham (Kutch)

Gujarat -370201

...First Party

Vs.

Their Workman

Sh. M.S. Parmar

Through the General Secretary,

Transport & Dock Workers Union,

21, Yogesh Building,

Plot No. 586,

12-C, Gandhidham (Kutch) Pin-370201,

Gandhidham (Kutch)

...Second Party

For the First Party

Sh. K.V. Gadhia, Advocate

For the Second Party

Sh. N.H. Rathod, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-37011/11/2013-

IR(B-II) dated 09.10.2013 referred the dispute for

adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management in denying of

MACP scheme to Shri M.S. Parmar, Labour Inspector w.e.f.

12.12.2006 is legal and justified? What relief, Sh. M. Parmar

Labour Inspector is entitled to?”

Both the parties were served. K.V. Gadhia Associates,

a solicitor were filed the vakalanama (Ext. 4) on behalf of

the First party and Advocate M.H. Parmar filed his

vakaltnama (Ext.6) on behalf of the second party.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 27] 2016@iQkYxqu 8] 1937

843

Today, on 10.12.2015, on applicant’s behalf, Advocate

M.S. Parmar moved an application (Ext.7) to withdraw the

reference. First party has no objection.

Hence, the withdrawal of the reference vide

application Ext.7 is allowed.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 358-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk

14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWiQ bafM;k

ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 182@2006)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18-02-2016 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@59@2006&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 18th February, 2016

S.O. 358.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 182/2006) of the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of Bank of

India and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 18.02.2016.

[No. L-12011/59/2006-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer

CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 14th December, 2015

Reference: (CGITA) No. 182/2006

The Chief Manager,

Bank of India,

Vadodara One,

Disciplinary Authority Zonal Office,

BOI Building, 1^st Floor,

Ellora Park, Subhanpura,

Vadodara (Gujarat) -390007

...First Party

Vs.

Their Workman,

Sh. P.N. Murthy,

Through the Dy. General Secretary,

Bank of India Employees Union,

Central Gujarat Branch,

BOI Buiding, Raopura,

P.B. No, 132, Baroda

...Second Party

For the First Party

Kum. Meenaben Shah,

Advocate

For the Second Party :

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-12011/59/2006-

IR(B-II) dated 03.10.2006 referred the dispute for

adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Bank of

India in imposing the punishment of stoppage of

next annual increment for a period of one year without

cumulative effect on Sh. P.S.N. Murthy, Staff clerk is

legal and justified? If not, what relief the concerned

workman is entitled to?”

This reference dates back to 03.10.2006. Learned

Counsel for the for the first party, D.C. Gandhi Associates

files vakalatnama on 11.04.2008. Second party was served

by way of registered post on 09.09.2008 but did not prefer

to submit the statement of claim. This Tribunal also

informed both the parties to appear in the court on

18.03.2011.

Thus, it appears that second party is not willing to

proceed with the reference by not preferring the file the

statements of claim. Thus, this Tribunal has no option but

to dismiss the reference in default of the second party.

Reference is dismissed in default of the second party.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 359-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk

14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWiQ cM+kSnk

ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;&2] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 50@2008)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18-02-2016 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@87@2008&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

844

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 27, 2016/PHALGUNA 8, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 18th February, 2016

S.O. 359.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 50/2008) of the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

No. II, Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the management of Bank of Baroda and

their workman, received by the Central Government on

18.02.2016.

[No. L-12011/87/2008-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

CUM LABOUR COURT - II, ROOM NO.33, BLOCK-

A,GROUND FLOOR, KARKARDOOMA COURT

COMPLEX, KARKARDOOMA, DELHI 110 032

Present:- Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena

ID.No. 50/2008

The General Secretary,

BOB Employees Union,

4824/24, Ansari Road,

Daryaganj

...Workman

Versus

The General Manager (DMR-II)

Bank of Baroda,

Zonal Office,

Bank of Baroda Building

...Management

AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

vide letter No. L-12011/87/2008-IR(B-II) dated 07.10.2008

referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal

for adjudication :-

“Whether the punishment imposed by the

management of Bank of Baroda, New Delhi in

‘Bringing Down Sh. Rakesh Bhatnagar, Cash Clerk

by eight stages in the time scale with cumulative

effect which will have the effect on postponing future

increments, is just, fair and legal? What relief the

workman is entitled to?

On 20/10/2008 reference was received in this Tribunal.

Which was register as I.D No. 50/2008 and claimant union

was called upon to file claim statement with in fifteen days

from date of service of notice. Which was required to be

accompanied with relevant documents and list of witnesses.

After service of notice workman/claimant filed claim

statement on 7.01.2009. Through which he prayed as

follows:-

It is prayed to the Hon’ble Tribunal that it may be

pleased to pass Award holding that the action of the bank

in imposing the punishment vide order dated 31.3.2003 and

order dated 29.06.2005 of the Appellate Authority are illegal,

invalid, and unjust and the same are set aside. It may further

be ordered that the workman is entitled to the pay-scales

and the consequential benefits thereon. Any other further

order /director as may be necessary and deemed fit be also

passed.

Against claim statement management filed written

statement on 20.07.2009. Through which management

prayed as follows:-

In view of the above, and considering the facts and

circumstances of the case, it is most respectfully prayed

that the petitioner workman is not entitled to any relief

much less the relief prayed for in the prayer clause of the

statement of claim and as such the claim of the workman

should be rejected with heave costs.

Claimant on 25.11.2009 filed rejoinder. Where in

workman reaffirmed the contents of claim statement and

prayed as follows:-

It is prayed to the Hon’ble Tribunal that it may

pleased to pass Award as prayed in the claim statement.

My. Ld. Predecessor on 4.07.2011 framed following

issues:-

Whether the departmental enquiry conducted

in this case is legal, just and fair and is not in

violation of the principles of natural justice? If

not, what directions are called for in this case?

As per the reference sent by the Govt. of India

in this case.

Relief.

Out of aforesaid issue. Issue no. 1 is relating to

enquiry which was ordered to be decided as preliminary

issue by my Ld. Predecessor. After evidence of parties I

fixed 13.08.2013 for order on Preliminary Issues No.1.

This Tribunal in the light of contentions and counter

contentions I perused the pleadings and evidence of the

parties and considered the settled law on the point and

passed order on 13.08.2013 deciding Preliminary Issue

No. 1 against workman and in favour of management and

fixed 13.10.2013 for evidence of parties on other issues.

On 3.10.2013 workman sought adjournment which

was allowed and case was adjourned to 12.11.2013.

On 12.11.2013 workman filed his affidavit in his

evidence. Copy of which supplied to management. Fixed

19.12.2013 for Tendering of affidavit and cross-examination

of workman.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 27] 2016@iQkYxqu 8] 1937

845

On 19.12.2013 workman tendered his affidavit and he

was partly cross-examined but his cross has been

continued fixing 28.1.2014.

On 28.1.2014 cross-examination of WW1 concluded

and 13.02.2014 was fixed for remaining evidence of workman.

On 13.02.2014 workman representative closed

evidence of workman then I fixed 24.04.2014 for management

evidence.

On 13.02.2014, 10.06.2014 , 31.07.2014 management

sought adjournments which were allowed.

On 8.8.2014 management filed affidavit of MW1

Mandeep Kumar. Copy of which supplied to workman and

fixed 1.09.2014 for tendering of affidavit and cross of

management witness.

On 1.09.2014 MW1 tendered his affidavit and he was

partly cross-examined. His remaining cross-examination has

been deferred to 14.10.2014.

On 14.10.2014 management sought adjournment

which was allowed and case was adjourned to 25.11.2014.

On 25.11.2014 cross-examination of MW1 was

concluded and 20.01.2015 was fixed for remaining evidence

of management.

19.2.2015, 23.04.2015, 4.6.2015 , 16.07.2015, 12.08.2015

and 15.09.2015 were also fixed for remaining evidence of

management.

On 6.10.2015 affidavit of MW2 Sh. S.K. Teri was

tendered and he was cross-examined. Thereafter

management closed its evidence.

Fixed 3.11.2015 for argument.

On 3.11.2015 Ld. A/Rs for the parties expressed their

desire to file written arguments hence fixed 7.12.2015 for

the same.

On 7.12.2015 Ld. A/R for the management filed written

arguments. Copy of which supplied to Ld. A/R for the

workman and 4.1.2016 for reply of written arguments of

management.

On 4.1.2016 Ld. A/R for the workman filed written

argument in reply to written argument of management.

Ld. A/Rs for the parties also orally argued on 4.1.2016

then I reserved the Award with liberty to Ld. A/Rs to file

photo copies of rulings in support of their contentions and

counter contention.

Ld. A/R for the management filed written arguments.

Wherein it mentioned as follows:-

Because the actual cause of action arose outside the

territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Industrial Tribunal. It

is submitted that territorial jurisdiction of an Industrial

Dispute is determined by the place of work of respondent

or of workman. In the instant case the registered office of

the respondent bank is at Mandvi, Baroda in the state of

Gujarat. Cause of action arose at Faridabad in the state of

Haryana where the workman committed serious acts of

employment misconduct including financial irregularities

when he was posted as Cashier cum clerk at management

bank’s Faridabad branch (erstwhile Bareilly Corporation

Bank Ltd). Regional Office of the management bank was at

Karnal in the state of Haryana at relevant time. Therefore

this Hon’ble court does not have territorial jurisdiction to

entertain and try the matter because cause of action, if any,

that arose to file the present claim is outside the territorial

jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court and the claim of the

workman is liable to be rejected on this ground alone.

Because the claim/representation/appeal of the

petitioner was duly considered by the Respondent Bank

and is declined/rejected vide a speaking order by

Competent Authority on merits and the same was

communicated as well to him. Respondent Bank cannot be

held liable for the peril of the petitioner who chose to harass

the respondent Bank unnecessarily for no fault of it.

Moreover the said speaking order no. ZO:ND:ZVD/251

dated 29.06.2005 is never challenged by the workman.

Because workman is a bank employee and is ought

to be a person of impeccable integrity and honesty. It is

held by Delhi High Court in Syndicate Bank, Zonal Office,

New Delhi vs Sanjay Kapoor 2007 LLR 51 that dismissal of

bank employee working against the interests of the bank

will be justified. The standard of proof, the mode of enquiry,

the rules for holding of the enquiry and the trial are

conspicuously different since in the case of disciplinary

enquiry, the technical rules of evidence have no application.

A bank management puts trust into an employee and does

not keep a watch that the employee will be working against

the interest of the bank hence the workman has lost the

confidence and should not have been reinstated.

That Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State Bank

of India & Ors. vs. Ramesh Kumar Punde 2007 LLR 1 has

held that a bank officer holds a position of trust where

honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of

functioning and it would not be proper to deal with the

matter leniently. It further held that if a bank officer commits

misconduct against the interest of the bank, he must be

dealt with iron hands does not deserve to be dealt with

leniently.

That a bank employee has to instil the public

confidence in the bank so that the interests of customers/

depositors are well safeguarded hence no amount was lost

to the bank would be no ground to take lenient view of the

proved misconduct by a bank officer. This is the rule laid

846

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 27, 2016/PHALGUNA 8, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Suresh Pathrella

vs Oriental Bank of Commerce 2007 LLR 144. It is also held

that every officer of the bank at all times has to take all

possible steps to protect the interests of the bank and

discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty,

devotion and diligence and do nothing which will be

unbecoming of a bank officer. When a bank officer has lost

the confidence, it will be futile exercise of judicial review to

embark upon the decision of the disciplinary authority

removing the officer, from service, preceded by enquiry,

and to direct the bank to take him back.

Because in the instant case the petitioner has not

challenged the departmental enquiry and therefore in the

absence of challenge to the legality and fairness of the

domestic enquiry, the court should be reluctant to either

interfere with the finding recorded by enquiry officer or the

punishment awarded by punishing authority. This

proposition is also upheld by Hon’ble Supreme Court of

India in Employers Management West Bokaro Colliery of

TISCO Ltd vs concerned Workman Ram Parvesh Singh in

2008 LLR 432.

That the petitioner has availed the remedy of Appeal

and his appeal is disposed of by Appellate Authority vide

a detailed speaking order. It is submitted that Appellate

Authority is above Disciplinary Authority and can review

the order passed by Disciplinary Authority. In the instant

case, the Appellate Authority has upheld the order of

Disciplinary Authority and therefore the order of Appellate

Authority is final and binding. The order of Appellate

Authority is also not subject matter of challenge before

any court of law and as such the captioned industrial

dispute is without any cause of action and is liable to be

rejected on this ground alone.

Brief facts of the case:

The petitioner workman was an employee of erstwhile

Bareilly Corporation Bank Limited (EBCBL) that was

amalgamated with respondent Bank and that during the

employment of petitioner with EBCBL, Faridabad branch

as Cashier cum Clerk, he committed serious acts of

employment misconduct involving moral turpitude and

having substantial financial repercussions. He was served

with charge sheet no. DCD/16/1779/ 98 dated 08.08.1998.

Petitioner workman did not maintain sufficient

balance in his savings bank account no. 408 at EBCBL’s

branch at Faridabad, Haryana that was sufficient to honour

cheque no. 528912 dated 29.09.1994 for Rs.32500.00 issued

by him to Saraswati Kunj House Building Society Ltd. And

in order to avoid action consequent upon anticipated

bouncing of cheque, he made a wrong and fictitious posting

at L.F. (Ledger Folio) 145 of Demand Loan giving following

narration : “To amt. D/ L agt FDR” with a view to avoid

detection of his wrong acts while tallying “Day Book” and

also to avoid returning of said cheque. He made a fictitious

debit in demand loan L.F. and misutilised EBCBL Bank’s

funds for his personal use. Petitioner workman again

managed a fictitious credit of Rs.7000.00 on 02.01.1995 in

D/L LF No. 145 with a view to reduce the fictitious debit of

Rs.32500.00 created by him.

Petitioner workman made wrong postings in books

of accounts maintained by the EBCBL bank with an attempt

to defraud the bank. He overlooked material aspect while

posting cash vouchers worth Rs. 1049000.00 (Rupees ten

lacs forty nine thousand only) in various demand loan

account that they do not bear signatures of recipients/

beneficiaries at the space provided for. He opened fictitious

demand loan account in collusion.

Petitioner workman made payment worth Rs.

202500.00 (Rupees two lacs two thousand five hundred

only) to persons on the basis of cheques/withdrawal forms

that do not bear signatures of the drawer.

Petitioner workman is accused of serious charges of

financial misappropriations, aiding and abetting in

commission of frauds which are prejudicial to the interest

of the bank, willful negligence in performance of duties,

acts of dishonesty prejudicial to the interest of bank and

willful act of tarnishing the image of the bank.

A departmental enquiry was constituted by the

EBCBL bank in accordance with applicable service

conditions. Petitioner participated in the said enquiry. He

was afforded an opportunity to be represented in the

enquiry. His representative cross-examined witnesses of

the management. Enquiry was conducted in a free and fair

manner as per principles of natural justice, fair play and

equity. Enquiry Officer submitted his report ignoring the

documentary evidence placed on record in respect of some

charges and on the basis of surmises and presumptions,

he gave petitioner workman benefit of doubt with respect

to some charges on the basis of presuming that the same is

clerical error without any collusion or malafide intention.

Remaining allegations against the petitioner stand proved

in the enquiry.

Copy of Enquiry report was provided to the petitioner

workman by Disciplinary Authority prior to its order.

Petitioner workman was afforded opportunity to offer his

comments/representation on the findings of the Enquiry

Officer and he submitted his comments on the same vide

his letter dated 22.09.2000. Disciplinary Authority disagreed

with the findings of Enquiry Officer with respect to charge

nos. 1, 2, 3(i) & 3(ii), 5, 6(i), 6(ii) & 6(iii) on the basis of

documentary evidence available on record of enquiry that

was overlooked and not properly appreciated by the

Enquiry Officer while giving his findings. Disciplinary

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 27] 2016@iQkYxqu 8] 1937

847

Authority informed this decision to petitioner workman

vide a detailed order no. RO: DM- II:VIG:296 dated 06.11.2002

and decided to hold a regular hearing of the matter. Hearing

in this regard was attended by the petitioner workman and

his defence representative. Disciplinary Authority then on

the basis of facts and circumstances brought on record,

substituted findings of Disciplinary Authority dated

06.11.2002, representation of workman with his defence

representative in regular hearing consequent upon letter/

order dated 06.11.2002, pronounced its order no. RO:DM-

II:VIG:564 dated 11.03.2003 inter alia holding the petitioner

workman guilty of charges of employment misconduct;

and proposed punishment. Petitioner workman was again

provided an opportunity to show cause against the nature

of the proposed punishment for which date of hearing was

also fixed. During the hearing on proposed punishment

petitioner workman along with his defence representative

pleaded that he has become victim of circumstances. On

perusal of findings of enquiry report and the substituted

findings and the statement/s made by CSE (charge sheeted

employee) and his defence representative during the

hearing, Disciplinary Authority observed vide its order

dated RO:DM-II:VIG:606 dated 31.03.2003 that the petitioner

workman was found guilty of the charges and imposed

punishment of reduction by –2- stages each in the time

scale of pay with cumulative effect for each of the –4-

charges of a) willful acts of aiding and abetting in

commission of frauds which are prejudicial to the interest

of respondent bank, b) willful negligence in performance

of duties, which are acts prejudicial to the interest of the

respondent bank, c) willful acts of dishonesty prejudicial

to the interest of respondent bank and d) willful acts of

tarnishing the image of the bank prejudicial to the interest

of the bank.

It is pertinent to mention here that the respondent

bank has taken a lenient view while imposing punishment

whereas the proportionate punishment in such cases of

proved charges of willful negligence resulting in financial

irregularities, misusing the official position with a financial

institution/bank, aiding and abetting in commission of fraud

for personal gain calls for punishment of dismissal of

service.

The petitioner workman appealed against the order

dated 31.03.2003 and vide detailed speaking order no.

ZO:ND:ZVD/251 dated 29.06.2005, Appellate Authority

considered the appeal and finally decided to reject the

appeal as appellant workman has not brought anything

new, relevant and material to the proven allegations/charges

in his appeal and upheld the order dated 31.03.2003 of

Disciplinary Authority.

10.

In view of the aforesaid the workman has committed

serious charges of employment misconduct for which he

was given lesser punishment than proportionate to the

proved charges of willful negligence resulting in financial

irregularities, misusing the official position with a financial

institution/bank, aiding and abetting in commission of fraud

etc.

11.

Feeling aggrieved by the order of Appellate Authority,

petitioner workman raised an Industrial Dispute which is

referred to this Hon’ble Tribunal with the following

reference :

“Whether the punishment imposed by the

management of Bank of Baroda, New Delhi bringing

down Sh. Rakesh Bhatnagar, Cash Clerk by eight

stages in the time scale with cumulative effect which

will have the effect on postponing future increment

is just, fair and legal? What relief is workman entitled

to?”

12.

During the proceedings before this Hon’ble Tribunal,

the conduct of Departmental Enquiry against the workman

is made Preliminary Issue. The Preliminary Issue of conduct

of Departmental Enquiry is decided in favour of respondent

management and it was held that enquiry was properly

held in accordance with principles of natural justice, fair

play and equity.

13.

During the proceedings, management has proved its

case that subsequent to conduct of enquiry, the

disciplinary authority differed with the findings of the

Enquiry Officer and while disagreeing with the findings,

Disciplinary Authority relied upon the documents placed

on record of enquiry which were not properly appreciated

by the Enquiry Officer.

14.

Accordingly, Disciplinary Authority informed of its

disagreement with the findings of Enquiry Officer to the

petitioner vide detailed order no. RO: DM-II: VIG: 296 dated

06.11.2002 to workman decided to hold a regular hearing.

15.

Regular hearing by Disciplinary Authority was

attended by the workman and his representative.

16.

Disciplinary Authority after considering the

documents brought on record of enquiry and explanation

by the workman during regular hearing before it, substituted

the findings of Enquiry Officer vide order no. RO:DM-

II:VIG:564 dated 11.03.2003 interalia holding petitioner

workman guilty of charges of employment misconduct, and

proposed punishment.

17.

During the hearing on proposed punishment,

petitioner workman along with his defence representative

pleaded that he has become victim of circumstances but he

is unable to justify his defence or produce any document

in his support.

848

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 27, 2016/PHALGUNA 8, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

18.

Disciplinary Authority observed vide its order dated

RO:DM-II:VIG:606 dated 31.03.2003 that the petitioner

workman was found guilty of the charges and imposed

punishment of reduction by –2- stages each in the time

scale of pay with cumulative effect for each of the –4-

charges of a) willful acts of aiding and abetting in

commission of frauds which are prejudicial to the interest

of respondent bank, b) willful negligence in performance

of duties, which are acts prejudicial to the interest of the

respondent bank, c) willful acts of dishonesty prejudicial

to the interest of respondent bank and d) willful acts of

tarnishing the image of the bank prejudicial to the interest

of the bank.

19.

The respondent bank has taken a lenient view while

imposing punishment whereas the proportionate

punishment in such cases of proved charges of willful

negligence resulting in financial irregularities, misusing the

official position with a financial institution/bank, aiding

and abetting in commission of fraud for personal gain calls

for punishment of dismissal of service.

20.

The petitioner workman appealed against the order

dated 31.03.2003 and vide detailed speaking order no.

ZO:ND:ZVD/251 dated 29.06.2005, Appellate Authority

considered the appeal and finally decided to reject the

appeal as appellant workman has not brought anything

new, relevant and material to the proven allegations/charges

in his appeal and upheld the order dated 31.03.2003 of

Disciplinary Authority.

21.

The workman has committed serious charges of

employment misconduct for which he was given lesser

punishment than proportionate to the proved charges of

willful negligence resulting in financial irregularities,

misusing the official position with a financial institution/

bank, aiding and abetting in commission of fraud etc.

Judgements relied upon by the management :

Dismissal from service of a Bank employee –

Misconduct as committed and proved in the enquiry

– pertained to conversion of monies belonging to

someone else – findings by enquiry officer that

petitioner had indulged in acts of fraud and derived

undue pecuniary advantage in detriment to interest

of the bank – further finding that he had indulged in

destruction of bank records to suppress his

fraudulent acts – Banks being financial institution

cannot afford to employ dishonest employee –

Dismissal of service after affording reasonable

opportunity of hearing – No interference required.

Dilip Sagar Vs D G M, Syndicate Bank, Ahmedabad

2005 LLR 218 Gujarat High Court

If a Bank Officer commits a misconduct pertaining to

his personal needs against the interests of the Bank

and depositors, he must be dealt with iron hands

and does not deserve to be dealt with leniently.

State Bank of India &Anr Vs Ramesh DinkarPunde

2007 LLR 1 Supreme Court

Bank Manager found to have committed serious

misconduct in relation to disbursement of loan to

non – existent firms further exceeding his powers in

granting loans – He was served with the charge sheet

– Charges proved in the enquiry – Punishment of

dismissal imposed – Manager filed writ petition -

Held, it is primarily for the disciplinary authority to

decide what punishment is to be inflicted for a

particular misconduct – in circumstances it cannot

be said that punishment of dismissal inflicted is

shocking to conscience of the court- order of

dismissal not interfered with by the High Court

Gorakh Nath Singh Vs State Bank of India

2005 233 Patna High Court

A bank officer has to instill the public confidence in

the bank so that the interests of customers/

depositors are well safeguarded hence no amount

was lost would be no ground to take a lenient view

of the proved misconduct of a bank officer.

When a bank officer has lost the confidence, it will

be futile exercise of judicial review to embark upon

the decision of the disciplinary authority removing

the officer from service, preceded by an enquiry, and

to direct the bank to take him back.

Suresh Pathrella Vs Oriental Bank of Commerce

2007 LLR 144 Supreme Court

Dismissal of a Bank employee for theft has been

rightly upheld by the Tribunal hence the High Court

will not interfere in writ petition when fair opportunity

was given to the employees for cross examining

witnesses.

Mohinder Pal Grover Vs Vijaya Bank &Anr

2006 502 Delhi High Court

When loss of confidence as reposed by the bank in

its officer is clearly established, the termination of

the officer is justified and the High Court in its writ

jurisdiction will not interfere.

Ramesh Kumar Vs Punjab National Bank

2007 LLR 682 Delhi High Court

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 27] 2016@iQkYxqu 8] 1937

849

It is misplaced sympathy by the Labour Courts in

such cases when on checking It is found that the

Bus Conductors have either not issued tickets to a

large number of passenger, though they should have,

or have issued tickets of a lower denomination

knowing fully well the correct fare to be charged. It is

the responsibility of the bus conductors to collect

the correct fare from the passengers and deposit the

same with the company. They act in fiduciary capacity

and it would be a case of gross misconduct if

knowingly they do not collect any fare or the correct

amount of fare.

Karnataka SRTC vs B S Hullikatti

[2001]2 SCC 574

Coming to the question of quantum of punishment,

one should bear in mind the fact that it is not the

amount of money misappropriated that becomes a

primary factor for awarding punishment; on the

contrary, it is the loss of confidence which is the

primary factor to be taken into consideration. In our

opinion when a person if found guilty of

misappropriating the Corporation’s funds, there is

nothing wrong in the Corporation losing confidence

or faith in such a person and awarding punishment

of dismissal.

Divisional Controller KSRTC vs A T Mane

[2005]3 SCC 254

Written arguments of workman are as follows:-

Order of Punishment dt. 31.03.2003 (Ex. WW1/4) unlawful,

illegal, perverse, harass and shockingly Disproportionate.

i) In his claim it is submitted in para 9 that the order

of punishment dt. 31.03.2003 of Disciplinary Authority

is bad in law and violative of the provisions of

Bipartite Settlement and same has been substantial

us in Chief Examination para 11 of the Evidential

Affidavit Ex. WW1/B . The expression of various

Acts & Omissions which constituter gross

misconduct has been provided in clause 19.5 sub

clause (a) to (1) of Bipartite Settlement as modified

by Supplement Settlement dt. 10.04.2002, which was

in operation at relevant period when disciplinary

proceeding initiated on 08.08.1998 and when,

concludes on 31.03.2003. The sub clause (j) which

was made applicable in case of claimant is as under:

“Doing any act prejudicial to the interest of bank or

gross negligence or negligence involving or likely to

involve the bank in serious loss.”

Admitted the aforesaid expression of gross

misconduct is consolidate one. The Disciplinary

Authority illegally and in violation aforesaid

provisions, treat them as four gross misconduct only

to impose multiple punishments. The act of

Disciplinary Authority indicates the closed,

capricious mind and action was not bonafide, fair

and thus colorable exercise of power is writ large.

ii) That the Disciplinary Authority while awarded

punishment, without considering the evidence and

documents available on record, specially the

documents Exh. WW1/7 to WW1/9, the FDR on

record and furher Exh. WW1/10 to WW1/14 which

clearly established that allegation 1 to 3 should have

not been proved if these documents were considered

in right prospect. The contention has been adduced

by Claimant in his Chief Examination WW1/B.

iii) Further Disciplinary Authority failed consider

document Exh. WW1/15 to WW1/18, which clearly

established that demand loan of Rs. 10,000 /- was

duly sanctioned by bank officials and entered into

ledger on 22.02.1995 as allegation No. 4 could have

not been stand proved. That with reference to the

evidence s show the allegation is proved and by

what evidence, it is stated in para 17 & 18 of claimants

chief examination WW1/B. Crucial facts which would

go to show the guilty of claimant has been ignored

by Disciplinary Authority as well appellate authority.

iv) That no document or complaints of A/c holder or

vouchers was on record before Disciplinary

Authority or before this Hon’ble Court in respect of

allegations no. 5 & 6 in respect of posting of debit

cash vouchers in various demand loan accounts and

posting of cheque /withdrawal which were posted

by claimant, without any documentary evidence,

aforesaid charges/allegation of fraud or irregularities

in various account cannot be proved. The allegation

were not in public domain nor same can be proved as

not a single documents or evidence of fraud or

irregulars or loss what to talk of serious loss to bank

was on record or put before this Hon’ble Court.

v) That admittedly the punishment was awarded

under Bipartite Settlements only. No other service

rules of erstwhile Bareilly Corporation Bank or Bank

of Baroda neither relied nor filed by the management

before this Hon’ble Court.

In Bipartite Settlement dt. 10.04.2002 which was in

operation when punishment was awarded and in

clause 6 various punishments for guilt of gross

misconduct has been prescribed , term of sub clause

(e) is as under:-e)

e) Be brought down to lower stage in the scale of

pay upto a maximum of two stages or.

850

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 27, 2016/PHALGUNA 8, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

It is clearly stipulate that Disciplinary Authority

cannot award multiple punishments and as such

the punishment handover to claimant vie order

dt. 31.03.2003, is beyond the prescribed maximum

of two stages in pay scale as such order is beyond

Jurisdiction , illegal and stringent. Multiple

punishments having cumulative effect which will

have the effect of postponing further increment

is nowhere prescribed Under Bipartite Settlement

order has been passed with modified and preset

mind. The effect of such punishment is , reduced

in his time scale by number of steps for which

increments are withheld and is in perpetuity during

rest of tenure and same cannot be imposed being

totally contrary to the terms of Settlement and

harsh as having long term effect in scale as well

pension and other retrial benefits of claimant.

Reliance is place on following judgments:

190(6) SLR 73case tilled as

Kulwant Singh Gill

Versus

State of Punjab

Annexure G

ii)

1986 (4) SLR 124 case tilled as

TC Kanan

Versus

Govt. of T.N.

Annexure H

vi) That claimant has stated in has claim para 12 and

24 of his Chief Examination that Disciplinary

Authority failed to consider the provisions lead

down in clause 19.12. of Bipartite Settlement, which

mandate Authority to considered Extenuating

circumstances as well as previous record of claimant.

Same was not considered as such discretion to

impose appropriate punishment has not been

exercised in proper and fair manner and not

sustainable in the law being in violation of prescribed

service conditions. The order of Disciplinary

Authority dt. 31.03.2003 is highly disproportionate,

illegal , unlawful irrational , perverse, harsh and does

commensurate with gravity of misconduct and likely

to set-aside by this Hon’ble Court.

E) ORDER OF APPELLATE AUTHORITY Dt. 29.06.2005

ILLEGAL.

That claimant has filed appeal dt. 21.06.2003 Exh.

WW1/5 before Appellate Authority within stipulated period.

The Appellate Authority slept on the same for more than

two years and without considering the submission in appeal

and documents on record and facts that Disciplinary

authority has passed the impugned order without holding

charges proved with reference to any evidence how the

allegations of charge sheet proved and his past record as

well as no reason of delay in passing order. Appeal was

dismissed mechanically in violation provision prescribed

in clause 14 of Bipartite Settlement dt. 10.04.2002, which

were in operation vide order dt. 29.06.2005 Ex. WW1/6 term

of clause clearly mandate the Appellate Authority to

decided appeal within a fix period of two months.

Admitted appeal was filed on 29.05.2003 and was decided

on 29.06.2005 after prescribed time limit without any

explanation for the same. As such order of Appellate

Authority is not Jurisdiction as authority not competent to

exercise powers after the expiry of two months.

Reliance is placed of the Judgment of CAT Hyderabad

1989 (1) SLR 445 case tilled as

P.Rajaram

Versus

Director Postal Services

Annexure (J)

Hon’ble Court competent to re-asses the evidence

documents on record a well as the provisions laid down in

Bipartite Settlements under which punishment has been

awarded.

On the aforesaid facts & submission the order dt.

31.03.2003 of Disciplinary Authority as well as order dt.

29.06.2005 of Appellate Authority are not sustainable being

illegal, against the provision of service rules, harsh and

does not commensurate the gravity of misconduct being

highly dis-proportionate.

Reference is likely to answer in favour of claimant /

workman and aforesaid may by set-side being illegal,

unlawful and bad on law.

In the light of contentions and counter contentions

I perused the pleadings of claim statement, written

statement, and rejoinder and evidence of parties on record

including written arguments of parties as well as principles

laid down cited rulings and settled law of Hon’ble Supreme

Court on the relevant points including provision laid down

in clause 19.2 of Bipartite Settlement including relevant

provision relating to major penalty /minor penalty awarded

after departmental enquiry – Effect of stoppage of

increments with cumulative effect and settled law of Hon’ble

S.C. on this point.

Through its written arguments management has

challenged the jurisdiction of this Tribunal alongwith other

points.

So I am firstly deciding the point of jurisdiction of

this Tribunal raised by Ld. A/R for the management.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 27] 2016@iQkYxqu 8] 1937

851

It is relevant to mention here that reference no.

L-12011/87/2008-IR(B-II) dated 7.10.2008 New Delhi

received in this Tribunal on 31.10.2008. On the basis of

which my Ld. Predecessor register it as I.D. No. 50/2008.

It is further relevant to mention here that management

has not filed writ-petition against aforesaid reference order.

Which was the available remedy against reference order.

That was not availed by management hence reference order

has become final so management is estopped to challenge

the jurisdiction of this Tribunal on the principle of

resjudicata and estoppel.

Moreover this Tribunal has no power to ignore the

compliance of reference order of Labour Ministry ,

Government of India, New Delhi.

Therefore this Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide

the instant I. D. So point of no jurisdiction to Tribunal

raised by Ld. A/R for management is of no avail to him.

Which is accordingly decided in favour of workman and

against management.

Now I am dealing with point of punishment of

workman dated 31.3.2003 Ext. WW1/4 as well order of

appellate authority date 29.6.2005 .

Through aforesaid order it is crystal clear that

Disciplinary Authority passed order of stoppage of eight

increments of workman with cumulative effect.

Which has been confirmed by appellate authority

without applying mind and not considering its effect

although its effect is that workman is reduced in his time –

scale by a number of steps for which the increments are

with held and it is in perpetuity during the rest of his tenure.

Then it is considered Major penalty . Which cannot be

imposed without holding regular departmental enquiry.

Aforesaid principle laid down by their Lordship of Supreme

Court inc case of Kulwant Singh Gill Vs. State of Punjab

1990 (6) S.L.R. P.73

It is settled of law of Hon’ble Supreme Court on the

aforesaid point so it is to be followed by all courts of India

as precedent as per provisions of Art 141 of Constitution

of India.

It is admitted fact that workman Sh. Rakesh Bhatnagar

is still in service of Management Bank.

It is also admitted fact that previous service record

of workman is unblemished. He was never warned even

for any misconduct.

Although it is alleged by management that workman

committed embezzlement at more than one time to show

that he paid off loan taken on by workman on the basis of

his F.D.R. But alleged embezzlement is not proved because

no amount of alleged embezzlements converted into his

use. As calculation mistakes were detected on checking.

So according to case of management only case of attempt

to commit embezzlement is made out. Which too is not

made out in the instant case as in the case of attempt to

commit embezzlement there must be no option to workman

to retreat back from commission of embezzlement.

So hardly workman made preparation to commit of

embezzlement of amount as alleged by management . But

such preparation is not punishable in any law. Hence, he

cannot be held liable for misconduct on aforesaid count.

Moreover possibilities of innocent calculation

mistakes cannot be ruled out specially in countless bank

transactions regularly held in bank. Disciplinary Authority

while awarding cumulative punishment to workman

brushed aside aforesaid aspect. Due to which awarded

punishment to workman has become shocking and

disproportionate punishment to his misconduct. Hence this

Tribunal is compelled to exercise power u/s11- A of ID Act,

1947 to reduce awarded punishment.

It is relevant to mention here that Bank deals in public

money.

But it is also relevant to mention here that at the time

of awarding punishment to workman for his misconduct , it

is to be seen whether it is 1st instance of misconduct or

not.

If not then what punishment was awarded to him for

his earlier misconduct.

If delinquent commits misconduct of similar nature

again then severe punishment can be awarded. Then it will

be justified. This principle has been laid down in case of

P.N.B Vs. The Labour Court & ors. 2015 LLR 1007 by his

Lordship of Hon’ble Kerala High Court on the basis of

settled law.

As workman was not previous convict of misconduct

hence penalty of withholding of eight increments with

cumulative effect imposed on him is major penalty. Which

cannot be imposed without holding a regular departmental

enquiry.

This principle has been laid down in case Kulwant

Singh Supra. Which applies with full force in the instant

case.

Principles laid down in rulings cited on behalf of

management are inapplicable due to distinguishable facts

in the instant case.

Aforesaid principles laid down in aforesaid rulings

cited on behalf of workman are applied with full force in the

instant case as Disciplinary Authority ignored the report

of Enquiry Officer and imposed penalty on workman. So

Penalty imposed on workman is not warranted. Which

852

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 27, 2016/PHALGUNA 8, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

requires modification from withholding of eight increments

with cumulative effect to withholding of two increments of

workman without cumulative effect.

Which is accordingly modified.

Reference is liable to be partly decided in favour of

workman and partly against Bank Management. Which is

accordingly decided and claim statement is partly allowed.

Management is directed to comply the directions after

expiry of period of available remedy against this Award.

Award is accordingly passed.

Dated:-28.1.2016

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 360-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk

14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj nsuk cSad ds

izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/

esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 918@2004) (3@2003)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18-02-2016 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@159@2002&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 18th February, 2016

S.O. 360.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 918/2004) (ITC No.

3/2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) as shown in the

Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the

management of Dena Bank and their workmen, received by

the Central Government on 18.02.2016.

[No. L-12012/159/2002-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer,

CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 11th December, 2015

Reference: (CGITA) No. 918/2004

Reference: (ITC) No. 3/2003

The Branch Manager,

Dena Bank,

ODE, Tal: Umreth,

Anand (Gujarat)

...First Party

Vs.

Their Workman,

Sh. Dilipbhai Ravjibhai Harijan,

ODE, Tal: Umreth,

Anand (Gujarat)

...Second Party

For the First Party

Sh. Advocate

For the Second Party

Sh. Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-12012/159/2002-

IR(B-II) dated 10.02.2003 referred the dispute for

adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Nadiad (Gujarat) in

respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Branch Manager, Dena

Bank, Ode Branch in discontinuing/terminating the

service of Shri Dilipbhai Ravjibhai Harijan w.e.f.

05.09.2001 is legal and justified? If not, what relief

the concerned workman is entitled to and from which

date?”

The reference dates back to 10.02.2003. After issuing

notice to the parties filed their statement of claim and written

statement respectively on 07.08.2003 and 04.03.2004 but it

is unfortunate that even after filing the statement of claim

and written statement, both the parties have not been

responding since last several dates.

Thus it appears that both the parties are not interested

in the proceedings of the reference.

Thus the Tribunal has no option but to dismiss the

reference in default of the parties.

The reference is dismissed in default of the parties.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 361-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk

14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lsaVªy cSad vkWiQ

bafM;k ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 93@2007)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18-02-2016 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@76@2007&vkbZvkj (ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 27] 2016@iQkYxqu 8] 1937

853

New Delhi, the 18th February, 2016

S.O. 361.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 93/2007) of the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of Central Bank

of India and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 18.02.2016.

[No. L-12011/76/2007-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer

CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 11th December, 2015

Reference: (CGITA) No. 93/2007

The Regional Manager,

Central Bank of India,

Regional Office, Post Box No. 534,

Central Bank Building,

2nd Floor,

Mandvi Tower Road,

Jamnagar-361001

...First Party

Vs.

Their Workman,

Through the Regional Secretary,

Central Bank Staff Union,

C/o. Central Bank of India,

Gandhi Chowk Branch,

Jamnagar

...Second Party

For the First Party

For the Second Party

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-12011/76/2007-

IR (B-II) dated 18.09.2007 referred the dispute for

adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad

(Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Central

Bank of India in awarding the punishment of bringimg

down by one stage of pay for one year without

cumulative effect to Shri A.A. Bawani, Cashier ‘E’

Verad Branch and exonerating the other two charge-

sheeted employees by giving only censer is legal

and justified? If not, to what relief the workman

concerned is entitled to?”

The present reference dates back to 18.09.2007.

parties were issued notice on behalf of the second party,

Central Bank Staff Union, Gujarat moved an application on

02.09.2008 for seeking time to file the statement of claim.

Despite seeking time till date statement of claim has not

been filed by the workman.

It is noteworthy that since last several dates none

have been responding for either of the parties.

Thus it appears that second party workman has no

interest in the proceeding of the reference. Thus the

reference is liable to be dismiss in default of the parties.

The reference is dismissed in default of the parties.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 362-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ¯gnqLrku

daLVªD'ku daiuh fyfeVsM] mÙkjk[akM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa

vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] fnYyh

ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 104@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@02@2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42011@26@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 19th February, 2016

S.O. 362.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 104/

2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. II, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of the Hindustan Construction Co.

Ltd., Uttrakhand and their workmen, which was received

by the Central Government on 18/02/2016.

[No. L-42011/26/2015-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, ROOM

NO. 33, BLOCK-A, GROUND FLOOR,

KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX,

KARKARDOOMA, DELHI 110 032

Present : Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena

854

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 27, 2016/PHALGUNA 8, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ID. No. 104/2015

Sh. Krishan Lal, Arya,

National Vice President,

HCC, Staff and workers Union,

Khandkhala, Bhagirathipuram,

Tehri, Tehri Garhwal,

Uttrakhand-249124

...Workman

Versus

The Project Manager,

M/s. Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd.,

Khandkhala , Bhagirathipuram,

Tehri, Tehri Garhwal,

Uttrakhand-249124

...Management

NO DISPUTE AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

vide Letter No. L- 42011/26/2015-IR(DU) dated 20.04.2015

referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal

for adjudication :-

“Whether the management of Hindustan

Construction Co. Ltd., Tehri is justified the ad-hoc

allowance form the earned wages of its CS category

workmen during the period of Oct, 2014 to Dec, 2014 ?

If not what should be time limit for payment of ad-

hoc allowance as arrears in respect of CS category

workmen.

On 24.07.2015 reference was received in this tribunal.

Which was register as I.D No. 104/2015 and claimants were

called upon to file claim statement with in fifteen days from

date of service of notice. Which was required to be

accompanied with relevant documents and list of witnesses.

Several opportunities given to workman as well as

management but neither workman nor management filed

claim statement / Response to the reference.

In this background there is no option to this tribunal

except to pass No Dispute Award because parties are not

interested to file their respective pleadings.

On the basis of which none of the party can be

directed to adduce its evidence. As it is case of no pleadings

and evidence of claimant. So No dispute Award is liable to

be passed.

No Dispute Award is accordingly passed.

Dated:-08/02/2016

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 363-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkWIVks

bySDVªkWfuDl iSQDVªh] nsgjknwu ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] fnYyh

ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 12@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@02@2016 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@29@2014&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 19th February, 2016

S.O. 363.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 12/2015)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. II, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of the Opto Electronics Factory, Dehradun

and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 18/02/2016.

[No. L-42012/29/2014-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, ROOM

NO. 33, BLOCK-A, GROUND FLOOR,

KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX,

KARKARDOOMA, DELHI 110 032

Present : Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena

ID. No. 12/2015

Sh. Devender S/o Late Sh. Satender Singh,

R/o 5/117, Chander Road,

Nai Basti (Rajesh Colony),

PO-Dalanwala,

Dehradun-248001

VERSUS

The General Manager,

Opto Electronics Factory,

Raipur Road,

Dehradun-492001.

No DISPUTE AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

vide Letter No. L- 42012/29/2014-IR(DU) dated 30.12.2014

referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal

for adjudication :-

“Whether Shri Devender’s case holds merit for

consideration for appointment on compassionate

ground being the earliest case among the equal three?

If so, the management of OEF, Dehradun, should

process accordingly in a fixed time period.

On 11.03.2015 reference was received in this tribunal.

Which was register as I.D No. 12/2015 and claimant was

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 27] 2016@iQkYxqu 8] 1937

855

called upon to file claim statement with in fifteen days from

date of service of notice. Which was required to be

accompanied with relevant documents and list of witnesses.

Several opportunities given to workman as well as

management but neither workman nor management filed

claim statement/Response to the reference.

In this background there is no option to this tribunal

except to pass No Dispute Award because parties are not

interested to file their respective pleadings.

On the basis of which none of the party can be

directed to adduce its evidence. As it is case of no pleadings

and evidence of claimant. So, No Dispute Award is liable to

be passed.

No Dispute Award is accordingly passed.

Dated:-08/02/2016

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 364-—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948

dk 34) dh /kjk 1 dh mi&/kjk (3) }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk

iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 1 ekpZ] 2016 dks ml

rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vf/fu;e ds

vè;k; 4 (44 o 45 /kjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Ùk gks pqdh gS)

vè;k; 5 vkSj 6 ¹/kjk 76 dh mi&/kjk (1) vkSj /kjk 77] 78]

79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Ùk dh tk pqdh gSaº ds micaèk

dsjy jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=kksa esa izo`Ùk gksaxs] vFkkZr~ %—

jsosU;q foYyst&fpjDdMoq] rkyqd&dkaftjIiYyh]

ftyk&dksV~V;e A

¹la- ,l&38013@01@2016&,l-,l- Iº

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 19th February, 2016

S.O. 364.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees’ State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government

hereby appoints the 1stMarch, 2016 as the date on which

the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45

which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-

V and VI [except sub-section (1) of Section 76 and Sections

77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into

force] of the said Act shall come into force in the following

areas in the State of Kerala namely :—

Revenue Village of Chirakkadavu in Kanjirapally

Taluk of Kottayam District.

[No. S-38013/01/2016-S.S. I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 19 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 365-—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948

dk 34) dh /kjk 1 dh mi&/kjk (3) }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk

iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 1 ekpZ] 2016 dks ml

rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vf/fu;e ds

vè;k; 4 (44 o 45 /kjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Ùk gks pqdh gS)

vè;k; 5 vkSj 6 ¹/kjk 76 dh mi&/kjk (1) vkSj /kjk 77] 78]

79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Ùk dh tk pqdh gSaº ds micaèk

dsjy jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=kksa esa izo`Ùk gksaxs] vFkkZr~ %—

jsosU;q foYyst&osYykowj] rkyqd&dkaftjIiYyh]

ftyk&dksV~V;e A

¹la- ,l&38013@02@2016&,l-,l- Iº

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 19th February, 2016

S.O. 365.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees’ State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government

hereby appoints the 1stMarch, 2016 as the date on which

the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45

which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-

V and VI [except sub-section (1) of Section 76 and Sections

77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into

force] of the said Act shall come into force in the following

areas in the State of Kerala namely :—

Revenue Village of Vellavoor in Kanjirappally Taluk

of Kottayam District.

[No. S-38013/02/2016-S.S. I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 19 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 366-—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948

dk 34) dh /kjk 1 dh mi&/kjk (3) }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk

iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 1 ekpZ] 2016 dks ml

rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vf/fu;e ds

vè;k; 4 (44 o 45 /kjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Ùk gks pqdh gS)

vè;k; 5 vkSj 6 ¹/kjk 76 dh mi&/kjk (1) vkSj /kjk 77] 78]

79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Ùk dh tk pqdh gSaº ds micaèk

dsjy jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=kksa esa izo`Ùk gksaxs] vFkkZr~ %—

jsosU;q foYyst&dwoIiYyh] rkyqd&dkaftjIiYyh]

ftyk&dksV~V;e A

¹la- ,l&38013@03@2016&,l-,l- Iº

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 19th February, 2016

S.O. 366.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees’ State

856

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 27, 2016/PHALGUNA 8, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government

hereby appoints the 1stMarch, 2016 as the date on which

the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45

which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-

V and VI [except sub-section (1) of Section 76 and Sections

77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into

force] of the said Act shall come into force in the following

areas in the State of Kerala namely :—

Revenue Village of Koovappally in Kanjirappally

Taluk of Kottayam District.

[No. S-38013/03/2016-S.S. I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 19 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 367-—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948

dk 34) dh /kjk 1 dh mi&/kjk (3) }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk

iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 1 ekpZ] 2016 dks ml

rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vf/fu;e ds

vè;k; 4 (44 o 45 /kjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Ùk gks pqdh gS)

vè;k; 5 vkSj 6 ¹/kjk 76 dh mi&/kjk (1) vkSj /kjk 77] 78]

79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Ùk dh tk pqdh gSaº ds micaèk

dsjy jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=kksa esa izo`Ùk gksaxs] vFkkZr~ %—

jsosU;q foYyst&,MDdqUue] rkyqd&dkaftjIiYyh]

ftyk&dksV~V;e A

¹la- ,l&38013@04@2016&,l-,l- Iº

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 19th February, 2016

S.O. 367.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees’ State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government

hereby appoints the 1stMarch, 2016 as the date on which

the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45

which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-

V and VI [except sub-section (1) of Section 76 and Sections

77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into

force] of the said Act shall come into force in the following

areas in the State of Kerala namely :—

Revenue Village of Edakkunnam in Kanjirappally

Taluk of Kottayam District.

[No. S-38013/04/2016-S.S. I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 19 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 368-—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948

dk 34) dh /kjk 1 dh mi&/kjk (3) }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk

iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 1 ekpZ] 2016 dks ml

rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vf/fu;e ds

vè;k; 4 (44 o 45 /kjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Ùk gks pqdh gS)

vè;k; 5 vkSj 6 ¹/kjk 76 dh mi&/kjk (1) vkSj /kjk 77] 78]

79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Ùk dh tk pqdh gSaº ds micaèk

dsjy jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=kksa esa izo`Ùk gksaxs] vFkkZr~ %—

jsosU;q foYyst&dkaftjIiYyh] rkyqd&dkaftjIiYyh]

ftyk&dksV~V;e A

¹la- ,l&38013@05@2016&,l-,l- Iº

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 19th February, 2016

S.O. 368.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees’ State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government

hereby appoints the 1stMarch, 2016 as the date on which

the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45

which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-

V and VI [except sub-section (1) of Section 76 and Sections

77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into

force] of the said Act shall come into force in the following

areas in the State of Kerala namely :—

Revenue Village of Kanjirappally in Kanjirappally

Taluk of Kottayam District.

[No. S-38013/05/2016-S.S. I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 19 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 369-—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948

dk 34) dh /kjk 1 dh mi&/kjk (3) }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk

iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 1 ekpZ] 2016 dks ml

rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vf/fu;e ds

vè;k; 4 (44 o 45 /kjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Ùk gks pqdh gS)

vè;k; 5 vkSj 6 ¹/kjk 76 dh mi&/kjk (1) vkSj /kjk 77] 78]

79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Ùk dh tk pqdh gSaº ds micaèk

dsjy jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=kksa esa izo`Ùk gksaxs] vFkkZr~ %—

jsosU;q foYyst&ef.keyk] rkyqd&dkaftjIiYyh]

ftyk&dksV~V;e A

¹la- ,l&38013@06@2016&,l-,l- Iº

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 19th February, 2016

S.O. 369.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees’ State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government

hereby appoints the 1stMarch, 2016 as the date on which

the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45

which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-

V and VI [except sub-section (1) of Section 76 and Sections

77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into

force] of the said Act shall come into force in the following

areas in the State of Kerala namely :—

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 27] 2016@iQkYxqu 8] 1937

857

Revenue Village of Manimala in Kanjirappally Taluk

of Kottayam District.

[No. S-38013/06/2016-S.S. I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 19 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 370-—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948

dk 34) dh /kjk 1 dh mi&/kjk (3) }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk

iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 1 ekpZ] 2016 dks ml

rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vf/fu;e ds

vè;k; 4 (44 o 45 /kjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Ùk gks pqdh gS)

vè;k; 5 vkSj 6 ¹/kjk 76 dh mi&/kjk (1) vkSj /kjk 77] 78]

79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Ùk dh tk pqdh gSaº ds micaèk

dsjy jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=kksa esa izo`Ùk gksaxs] vFkkZr~ %—

jsosU;q foYyst&iÕ;ukM] rkyqd&,jukM] ftyk&eyIiqje A

¹la- ,l&38013@07@2016&,l-,l- Iº

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 19th February, 2016

S.O. 370.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees’ State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government

hereby appoints the 1stMarch, 2016 as the date on which

the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45

which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-

V and VI [except sub-section (1) of Section 76 and Sections

77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into

force] of the said Act shall come into force in the following

areas in the State of Kerala namely :—

Revenue Village of Payyanad in Ernad Taluk of

Malappuram District.

[No. S-38013/07/2016-S.S. I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 19 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 371-—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948

dk 34) dh /kjk 1 dh mi&/kjk (3) }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk

iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 1 ekpZ] 2016 dks ml

rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vf/fu;e ds

vè;k; 4 (44 o 45 /kjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Ùk gks pqdh gS)

vè;k; 5 vkSj 6 ¹/kjk 76 dh mi&/kjk (1) vkSj /kjk 77] 78]

79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Ùk dh tk pqdh gSaº ds micaèk

dsjy jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=kksa esa izo`Ùk gksaxs] vFkkZr~ %—

jsosU;q foYyst&eatsjh] rkyqd&,jukM] ftyk&eyIiqje A

¹la- ,l&38013@08@2016&,l-,l- Iº

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 19th February, 2016

S.O. 371.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees’ State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government

hereby appoints the 1stMarch, 2016 as the date on which

the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45

which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-

V and VI [except sub-section (1) of Section 76 and Sections

77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into

force] of the said Act shall come into force in the following

areas in the State of Kerala namely :—

Revenue Village of Manjeri in Ernad Taluk of

Malappuram District.

[No. S-38013/08/2016-S.S. I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 19 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 372-—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948

dk 34) dh /kjk 1 dh mi&/kjk (3) }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk

iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 1 ekpZ] 2016 dks ml

rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vf/fu;e ds

vè;k; 4 (44 o 45 /kjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Ùk gks pqdh gS)

vè;k; 5 vkSj 6 ¹/kjk 76 dh mi&/kjk (1) vkSj /kjk 77] 78]

79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Ùk dh tk pqdh gSaº ds micaèk

dsjy jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=kksa esa izo`Ùk gksaxs] vFkkZr~ %—

jsosU;q foYyst&ps:oYyh] rkyqd&dkaftjIiYyh]

ftyk&dksV~V;e A

¹la- ,l&38013@09@2016&,l-,l- Iº

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 19th February, 2016

S.O. 372.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees’ State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government

hereby appoints the 1stMarch, 2016 as the date on which

the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45

which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-

V and VI [except sub-section (1) of Section 76 and Sections

77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into

force] of the said Act shall come into force in the following

areas in the State of Kerala namely :—

Revenue Village of Cheruvally in Kanjirappally Taluk

of Kottayam District.

[No. S-38013/09/2016-S.S. I]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

858

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 27, 2016/PHALGUNA 8, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 22 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 373-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ vDnkl

eSjhVkbe ,tsUlh izk- fyfeVsM vkSj nwljksa ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼

fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2]

ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 38@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18-02-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@22@2014&vkbZvkj (,e)º

uohu diwj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 22nd February, 2016

S.O. 373.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 38/

2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-2, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Aqdas Maritime Agency Pvt. Ltd.

and other and their workmen, which was received by the

Central Government on 18.02.2016.

[No. L-42012/22/2014-IR (M)]

NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

ROOM NO. 33, BLOCK-A, GROUND FLOOR,

KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX,

KARKARDOOMA, DELHI-110032

Present :

Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena

ID. No. 38/15

Sh.Akhilesh Kumar, S/o Sh. Kanta Prasad,

through, General Mazdoor Lal Jhanda Union,

B-1/A, Nathu Colony (East) , 100 Foota Road,

Delhi -110093

Versus

1.The Manager,

M/s. Aqdas Maritime Agency Pvt. Ltd., 32/33,

Eastern Chamber , 4^th Floor, 128/A,

Nandal Jani Marg, (Poora Street),

Mumbai-400009.

2.The Managing Director ,

Central Warehousing Corporation,

4/1, Siri Fort Industrial Area,

August Kranti Marg, Hauz Khas, New Delhi-110016.

3.The Regional Manager ,

Central Warehousing Corporation,

Scope Minar, First Floor, Laxmi Nagar,

New Delhi-110092.

4. The Manager,

M/s. Suman Forwarding Agency Pvt. Ltd.

ICD , Near Gazipur village,

Patparganj, Delhi-110096.

NO DISPUTE AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

vide Letter No. L- 42012/22/2014-IR(M)) dated 11.2.2015

referred the following Industrial Dispute to this tribunal for

adjudication :-

“Whether the termination of Sh.Akhilesh Kumar,

S/o Sh. Kanta Prasad, w.e.f. 3.1.2013 by the

management no. 4 i.e. Suman Forwarding Agency

Pvt. Ltd. without making payment of legitimate due

is just, fair and legal? If not what relief will be given

to the workman and from which date? Whether the

management no. 1 & 2 i.e. Central Warehousing

Corporation is responsible to ensure and secure

continuance of employment of Sh.Akhilesh Kumar,

S/o Sh. Kanta Prasad, in the establishment of new

contractor appointed for undertaking the job of such

contractor i.e. management no. 3 i.e. M/s. Aqdas

Maritime Agency Pvt. Ltd. If not, what relief the

workman concerned is entitled to?”

On 11.03.2015 reference was received in this tribunal.

Which was register as I.D No. 38/2015 and claimant was

called upon to file claim statement with in fifteen days from

date of service of notice. Which was required to be

accompanied with relevant documents and list of witnesses.

Several opportunities given to workman as well as

management but neither workman nor management filed

claim statement / Response to the reference.

In this background there is no option to this tribunal

except to pass No Dispute Award because parties are not

interested to file their respective pleadings.

On the basis of which none of the party can be

directed to adduce its evidence. As it is case of no pleadings

and evidence of claimant. So No dispute Award is liable to

be passed.

No Dispute Award is accordingly passed.

Dated:-08/02/2016

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 22 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 374-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ Hkkjr

isVªksfy;e dksiksjs'ku fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] ubZ

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 27] 2016@iQkYxqu 8] 1937

859

fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 193@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18-02-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30025@1@2016&vkbZvkj (,e)º

uohu diwj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 22nd February, 2016

S.O. 374.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 193/

2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-2, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited

and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 18.02.2016.

[No. L-30025/1/2016-IR (M)]

NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

ROOM NO. 33, BLOCK-A, GROUND FLOOR,

KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX,

KARKARDOOMA, DELHI-110032

Present:- Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena

ID. No. 193/15

Sh. Rajender Kumar,

S/o Sh. Sheesh Ram,

R/o Village Ismilpur,

Dr. Megh Chapper,

District Saharanpur

...Workman

Versus

General Manager,

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited.

Maida Mill Fatak

Saharanpur

...Management

Ex-parte AWARD

Workman filed claim directly u/s 2A of ID.Act, 1947

on 23.09.2013. Which was registered as Misc. Case No. 4/

13. Claim Statement filed but no reply in response to notice

issued and served upon management after sufficient

opportunity hence right to file reply by management has

been closed by this Tribunal on 15.05.2014 and case was

proceeded ex-parte against management and fixed 16.6.2014

for ex-parte evidence of workman. Workman to prove his

case filed his affidavit on 9.3.2015. On 21.05.2015 workman

tendered his affidavit alongwith annexed documents. After

ex-parte evidence of workman case was fixed for ex-parte

arguments Ld.A/R for workman on 21.09.2015 filed written

arguments .

Although case was fixed for ex-parte oral arguments

also. But Ld. A/R for the workman expressed his desire not

to orally argue. Then I reserved the award on 30.11.2015.

On 22/12/15 I directed to concern clerk to register it

as I.D. case than it was registered as I.D.No. 193/15.

Through written arguments claimed workman

following reliefs :-

1. He be reinstated with full back wages.

2. He be reinstated at a required place of

seniority list of workman to which he is entitled to reinstate

alongwith other consequential reliefs.

3. He be given any other relief which this Tribunal

deems fit.

In the light of contentions of Ld. A/R for the workman

mentioned in written arguments. I perused the pleadings

and evidence of workman on record. Which makes it crystal

clear that date of termination of workman is 1.3.1997 and

this Industrial Dispute by him have been filed on 23.9.2013

after three years. Which is not maintainable as per

provisions of section 2A (3) of ID. Act as time barred. Which

requires that such dispute must be filed within a period of

3 years since dismissal /termination of workman.

In these circumstances this Tribunal has no option

except to dismiss this Industrial Dispute as time barred.

Hence it is liable to be decided against workman and in

favour of management. Which is accordingly decided.

Award is accordingly passed.

Dated:-08.02.2016

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 22 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 375-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ vDnkl

eSjhVkbe ,tsUlh izk- fyfeVsM vkSj nwljksa ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼

fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2]

ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 37@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18-02-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@21@2014&vkbZvkj (,e)º

uohu diwj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 22nd February, 2016

S.O. 375.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 37/

2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-2, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

860

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 27, 2016/PHALGUNA 8, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

management of M/s. Aqdas Maritime Agency Pvt. Ltd.

and other and their workmen, which was received by the

Central Government on 18.02.2016.

[No. L-42012/21/2014-IR (M)]

NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

ROOM NO. 33, BLOCK-A, GROUND FLOOR,

KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX,

KARKARDOOMA, DELHI-110032

Present:- Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena

ID. No. 37/15

Sh.Sajay Yadav, S/o Sh. Phool Chandra Yadav,

through, General Mazdoor Lal Jhanda Union,

B-1/A, Nathu Colony (East) , 100 Foota Road,

Delhi -110093

…Workman

Versus

1. The Manager,

M/s. Aqdas Maritime Agency Pvt. Ltd., 32/33,

Eastern Chamber , 4^th Floor, 128/A,

Nandal Jani Marg, (Poora Street),

Mumbai-400009.

2.The Managing Director ,

Central Warehousing Corporation,

4/1, Siri Fort Industrial Area,

August Kranti Marg, Hauz Khas, New Delhi-110016.

3.The Regional Manager ,

Central Warehousing Corporation,

Scope Minar, First Floor, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi-110092.

4. The Manager,

M/s. Suman Forwarding Agency Pvt. Ltd.

ICD , Near Gazipur village,

Patparganj, Delhi-110096.

…Management

NO DISPUTE AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

vide Letter No. L- 42012/21/2014-IR(M) dated 11.12.2014

referred the following Industrial Dispute to this tribunal for

adjudication :-

“Whether the termination of Sh. Sajay Yadav, S/o

Sh. Phool Chandra Yadav, w.e.f. 3.1.2013 by the

management no. 4 i.e. Suman Forwarding Agency

Pvt. Ltd. without making payment of legitimate due

is just, fair and legal? If not what relief will be given

to the workman and from which date? Whether the

management no. 1 & 2 i.e. Central Warehousing

Corporation is responsible to ensure and secure

continuance of employment of Sh. Sajay Yadav,

S/o Sh. Phool Chandra Yadav, in the establishment

of new contractor appointed for undertaking the job

of such contractor i.e. management no. 3 i.e. M/s.

Aqdas Maritime Agency Pvt. Ltd. If not, what relief

the workman concerned is entitled to?”

On 11.03.2015 reference was received in this tribunal.

Which was register as I.D No. 37/2015 and claimant was

called upon to file claim statement with in fifteen days from

date of service of notice. Which was required to be

accompanied with relevant documents and list of witnesses.

Several opportunities given to workman as well as

management but neither workman nor management filed

claim statement / Response to the reference.

In this background there is no option to this tribunal

except to pass No Dispute Award because parties are not

interested to file their respective pleadings.

On the basis of which none of the party can be

directed to adduce its evidence. As it is case of no pleadings

and evidence of claimant. So No dispute Award is liable to

be passed.

No Dispute Award is accordingly passed.

Dated:-08/02/2016

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 22 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 376-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ vDnkl

eSjhVkbe ,tsUlh izk- fyfeVsM vkSj nwljksa ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼

fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2]

ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 34@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18-02-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42011@11@2014&vkbZvkj (,e)º

uohu diwj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 22nd February, 2016

S.O. 376.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 34/

2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-2, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Aqdas Maritime Agency Pvt. Ltd.

and others and their workmen, which was received by the

Central Government on 18.02.2016.

[No. L-42011/11/2014-IR (M)]

NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 27] 2016@iQkYxqu 8] 1937

861

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

ROOM NO. 33, BLOCK-A, GROUND FLOOR,

KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX,

KARKARDOOMA, DELHI-110032

Present:- Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena

ID.No. 34/15

Sh. Ishar Hussain, S/o Sh. Hameed Hussain,

Through, General Mazdoor Lal Jhanda Union,

B-1/A , Nathu Colony (East),

100 Foota Road,

Delhi-110093.

Versus

1.The Manager,

M/s. Aqdas Maritime Agency Pvt. Ltd., 32/33,

Eastern Chamber , 4^th Floor, 128/A,

Nandal Jani Marg, (Poora Street),

Mumbai-400009.

2.The Managing Director ,

Central Warehousing Corporation,

4/1, Siri Fort Industrial Area,

August Kranti Marg, Hauz Khas, New Delhi-110016.

3.The Regional Manager ,

Central Warehousing Corporation,

Scope Minar, First Floor, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi-110092.

4. The Manager,

M/s. Suman Forwarding Agency Pvt. Ltd.

ICD , Near Gazipur village,

Patparganj, Delhi-110096.

NO DISPUTE AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

vide Letter No. L- 42011/11/2014-IR (M) dated 12.02.2015

referred the following Industrial Dispute to this tribunal for

adjudication :-

“Whether the termination of Sh. Ishar Hussain S/o

Hameed Hussain w.e.f. 3.1.2013 by the management

no. 4 i.e. Suman Forwarding Agency Pvt. Ltd. without

making payment of legitimate due is just, fair and

legal? If not what relief will be given to the workman

and from which date? Whether the management no.

1 & 2 i.e. Central Warehousing Corporation is

responsible to ensure and secure continuance of

employment of Sh. Ishar Hussain S/o Sh. Hameed

Hussain in the establishment of new contractor

appointed for undertaking the job of such contractor

i.e. management no. 3 i.e. M/s. Aqdas Maritime

Agency Pvt. Ltd. If not, what relief the workman

concerned is entitled to?”

On 11.03.2015 reference was received in this tribunal.

Which was register as I.D No. 34/2015 and claimant was

called upon to file claim statement with in fifteen days from

date of service of notice. Which was required to be

accompanied with relevant documents and list of witnesses.

Several opportunities given to workman as well as

management but neither workman nor management filed

claim statement / Response to the reference.

In this background there is no option to this tribunal

except to pass No Dispute Award because parties are not

interested to file their respective pleadings.

On the basis of which none of the party can be

directed to adduce its evidence. As it is case of no pleadings

and evidence of claimant. So No dispute Award is liable to

be passed.

Dated:-08/02/2016

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 22 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 377-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ vDnkl

eSjhVkbe ,tsUlh izk- fyfeVsM vkSj nwljksa ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼

fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2]

ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 32@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18-02-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42011@6@2014&vkbZvkj (,e)º

uohu diwj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 22nd February, 2016

S.O. 377.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 32/

2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-2, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Aqdas Maritime Agency Pvt. Ltd.

and other and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 18.02.2016.

[No. L-42011/6/2014-IR (M)]

NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

ROOM NO. 33, BLOCK-A, GROUND FLOOR,

KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX,

KARKARDOOMA, DELHI-110032

Present:- Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena

ID. No. 32/15

862

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 27, 2016/PHALGUNA 8, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Sh.V.A. Mishara, S/o Sh. Parasu Ram Mishra,

Through, General Mazdoor Lal Jhanda Union,

B-1/A, Nathu Colony (East) , 100 Foota Road,

Delhi -110093

Versus

1.The Manager,

M/s. Aqdas Maritime Agency Pvt. Ltd., 32/33,

Eastern Chamber , 4^th Floor, 128/A,

Nandal Jani Marg, (Poora Street),

Mumbai-400009.

2.The Managing Director ,

Central Warehousing Corporation,

4/1, Siri Fort Industrial Area,

August Kranti Marg, Hauz Khas, New Delhi-110016.

3.The Regional Manager ,

Central Warehousing Corporation,

Scope Minar, First Floor, Laxmi Nagar,

New Delhi-110092.

4. The Manager,

M/s. Suman Forwarding Agency Pvt. Ltd.

ICD , Near Gazipur village,

Patparganj, Delhi-110096.

NO DISPUTE AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

vide Letter No.L- 42011/6/2014-IR(M)) dated 13.02.2015

referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal

for adjudication :-

“Whether the termination of Sh. V.A Mishara S/o Sh.

Parasu Ram Mishra, w.e.f. 3.1.2013 by the management

no. 4 i.e. Suman Forwarding Agency Pvt. Ltd. without

making payment of legitimate due is just, fair and

legal? If not what relief will be given to the workman

and from which date? Whether the management no.

1 & 2 i.e. Central Warehousing Corporation is

responsible to ensure and secure continuance of

employment of Sh. V.A Mishara S/o Sh. Parasu Ram

Mishra, in the establishment of new contractor

appointed for undertaking the job of such contractor

i.e. management no. 3 i.e. M/s Aqdas Maritime

Agency Pvt. Ltd. If not, what relief the workman

concerned is entitled to?”

On 11.03.2015 reference was received in this tribunal.

Which was register as I.D No. 32/2015 and claimant was

called upon to file claim statement with in fifteen days from

date of service of notice. Which was required to be

accompanied with relevant documents and list of witnesses.

Several opportunities given to workman as well as

management but neither workman nor management filed

claim statement / Response to the reference.

In this background there is no option to this tribunal

except to pass No Dispute Award because parties are not

interested to file their respective pleadings.

On the basis of which none of the party can be

directed to adduce its evidence. As it is case of no pleadings

and evidence of claimant. So No dispute Award is liable to

be passed.

No Dispute Award is accordingly passed.

Dated:-08/02/2016

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 22 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 378-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkfdZvksykWftdy

losZ vkWiQ bafM;k ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la[;k 8@2009) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

18-02-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@68@2008&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 22nd February, 2016

S.O. 378.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 8/2009) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Kanpur now

as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between

the employers in relation to the management of the

Archaeological Survey of India and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 18.02.2016.

[No. L-42012/68/2008-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOR COURT,

KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 8 of 2009

Between :

Sri Virendra alias Babu, son of Sri Kali Charan,

149, Shivaji Nagar,

Kanpur Road,

Jhansi.

And

Dy. Superintending Horticulturist,

Archaeological Survey of India,

Horticulture Division No.1,

Taj Mahal, Agra.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 27] 2016@iQkYxqu 8] 1937

863

AWARD

1. Central Government, Mol, New Delhi, vide

notification no.L-42012/68/2008-IR(DU) dated 17.02.09, has

referred the following dispute for adjudication to this

tribunal-

2. Whether the action of the management of

Archaeological Survey of India, in terminating the services

of their workman Sri Virendra Alias Babu w.e.f. 01.05.2006 is

legal and justified? If not to what relief the workman is

entitled to?

3. In short the claim of the worker is that he worked

continuously from 01.03.04 to 30.04.06 as casual gardner

under the opposite party at Jhansi and almost completed

240 days of continuous service in each calendar year during

the said period and in this way he acquired a right of getting

regular and permanent employment under the opposite

party. The opposite party abruptly and without showing

any cause terminated the service of the worker with effect

from 01.05.06 in utter disregard of provision of section 25 F

of the I.D. Act, 1947. Not only it but the opposite party

have badly breached the provision of section 25G and 25H

of the Act openly. Hundreds of junior persons to the worker

are still working under the opposite party and after

removing the service of the worker opposite party engaged

Sri Kailash, Suresh and Sri Pradeep who are still working

under the opposite party at Jhansi. It is also alleged that

the opposite party appoints persons on the vacant posts

under group “D” category but the right of the worker to be

appointed has been prevented by the opposite party.

4. In the end it has been prayed by the worker that

the action of the management be set aside and he be

reinstated in the service of the opposite party with full

back wages and continuity of service.

5. The claim of the worker has been refuted by the

opposite party, inte-ralia, on the ground that ASI

Horticulture Division 1, Tajmahal, Agra, is responsible for

maintenance and development of gardens around the

National Protected Monument for improvement of

environment which is a part of sovereign functions,

therefore ASI is not an Industrial Establishment. The

worker had never been employed as casual employee as

gardner in ASI Horticulture Division.1 Taj Mahal Agra and

their sub divisions as mentioned in the statement of claim

nor had ever completed continuous service of 240 days

preceding 12 calendar months from the date of his

termination. Daily paid agriculture mazdoors are engaged a

per requirement / need in casual and seasonal horticulture

work in the department and the nature of work performed

by the worker is not perennial but occasional, intermittent

or casual. Opposite party had never terminated the service

of the applicant with effect from 01.05.06. The opposite

party engage daily paid casual labor from open market for

shorter period less than a month to complete horticulture

work purely of casual nature, the worker had no lien against

any post or right to claim regular and permanent

employment. Vacancies created under the opposite party

are filled up in accordance with the rules and provisions of

Government of India after following the due procedure as

laid down by ASI. Opposite party had never issued any

appointment letter to the worker and likewise had never

issued any termination letter in favor of the worker. As the

opposite party had never terminated the services of the

worker, therefore, question of breach of the relevant

provision of the Act does not arise. The claim of the worker

do not fall within the term of Industrial Dispute hence, is

not tenable before this tribunal. Worker is also not a

workman under the provision of section 2(s) of the Act,

therefore, the claim of the worker suffers from serious

latches and being so the same is devoid of merit and is

therefore, liable to be rejected.

6. Worker has also filed certain photocopies of

documents along with his claim petition.

7. Worker has also moved an application for

summoning certain documents from the opposite party.

Against it the opposite party filed its reply on affidavit

alleging therein that the all efforts were made to find out

the muster roll and payment sheet vouchers of the aid

periods but the same could not be traced out by the

department.

8. Opportunity to adduce evidence by the worker

was closed by order dated 05.05.15 as he did not turn up in

the court.

9. As the worker did not adduce evidence,

management also made an endorsement on the order sheet

that they will also not adduce any evidence in the case.

10. Therefore, it is a case where none of the contesting

parties have adduced their respective evidence

documentary or oral to prove their cases.

11. Therefore, as the worker has completely failed to

prove his case and further failed to adduce evidence to

prove the fact that he had worked continuously for 240

days preceding 12 calendar months from the date of

termination of his service, he cannot be held entitled for

any relief for want of evidence and proof.

12. Therefore, reference is decided against the worker

and it is held that he is not entitled for the relief claimed by

him.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 22 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 379-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr lapkj

fuxe fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV

864

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 27, 2016/PHALGUNA 8, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(lanHkZ la[;k 15@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 18-02-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@84@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 22nd February, 2016

S.O. 379.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 15/

2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Kanpur now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 18.02.2016.

[No. L-40012/84/2013-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL

GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM

LABOR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 15 of 2014

Between-

Sri R.C. Pandy,

Prantiya Sachiv,

Bhartiya Telecom Employees Union,

BSNL, 53-A, Visheshwar Nagar,

Alambagh,

Lucknow – 226 005.

And

Chief General Manager,

BSNL UP Circle,

Hazaratganj,

Lucknow – 226 001.

A W A R D

1. Central Government, Mol, New Delhi, vide

notification no. L- 40012/84/2013-IR(D.U.) dated 21.01.14,

has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this

tribunal-

2. Whether the action of the management of the

BSNL Lucknow in transferring Sri Shrawan Ran, Telecom

Mechanic from Varanasi toDharauli under SDO Phone

Chandauli and Sri Babu Lal, Telecom Mechanic from

Varanasi to Khamaria in consequence of order of

management with a view to deprive upon activity is legal

and justified? If not to what relief the concerned workmen

are entitled for and to what extent?

3. The present dispute has been espoused on behalf

of workers named in the schedule of reference order by the

Sachiv of BSNL Bhartiya Telecom Employees Union and

the reference was received in the office of the tribunal and

the same was registered.

4. Notices were issued to the parties connected with

the reference order, on 11.3.14, and 13.5.15 under registered

cover. From the record of the case it appears that none

appeared in the case on the dates fixed in the case from the

side of the Union nor any claim statement was filed in the

case on behalf of the workers of the case.

5. It thus appears that the union raising the dispute

is least interested in prosecuting the present reference

order.

6. Under the circumstances of the case tribunal feels

no hesitation in deciding the reference against the union

for want of pleading and evidence.

7. Accordingly Union is not entitled for any benefit.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 22 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 380-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fczfV'k bafM;k

dkjiksjs'ku gsM vkWfiQl ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la- 20@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

18-02-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42011@82@2011&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 22nd February, 2016

S.O. 380.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 20/

2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Kanpur now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of British India Corporation Head Office and

their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 18.02.2016.

[No. L-42011/82/2011-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI HUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOR COURT,

KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 20 of 2012

The President,

Cotton Woolen Textile Worker Union,

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 27] 2016@iQkYxqu 8] 1937

865

102/95A Colonel Ganj,

Kanpur.

And

The General Manager,

British India Corporation Head Office,

Elgin Mills Co. Ltd., Mill No.1,

Parwati Bagla Road,

Civil Lines,

Kanpur.

A W A R D

1. Central Government, Mol, New Delhi, vide

notification no.L-42011/82/2011-IR(DU) dated 03.02.2012

has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this

tribunal-

2. Whether the action of the management of British

India Corporation Ltd, Kanpur in denial to designate Sri

Chandra Prakash Chaturvedi, Mohd. Nazim Khan, Jai Singh

Yadav and Vijay Kumar Tiwari as peon despite their

satisfactory working as peon for more than ten years is

just fair and legal? If not what relief the workmen concerned

are entitled to?

3. In the instant case after exchange of pleadings

between the parties when the case was taken up for hearing

on 11.05.15, which was the date for cross examination of

the worker he remained absent from the proceedings

whereas representative for the management was present.

It also revealed that the workman is remaining absent from

the proceedings of the case since last several dates

therefore, it appears that the workers are not interested in

prosecuting their claim before the tribunal. Therefore, as

the workman could not be cross examined by the opposite

party, opportunity of evidence was closed by the tribunal.

His evidence cannot be read.

4. Management representative was present and

considering the conduct of the worker also made an

endorsement on the order sheet dated 11.05.15 that as the

worker has not adduced any evidence they are not willing

to give any evidence in the case.

5. Under the facts and circumstances of the case

the tribunal is left with no other but to decide the reference

against the workers for want of evidence. It is also held

that concerned workers are not entitled for any relief

pursuant to the reference.

6. Reference is answered accordingly.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 22 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 381-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkfdZvksykWftdy

losZ vkWiQ bafM;k ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la- 24@2008) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

18-02-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@72@2007&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 22nd February, 2016

S.O. 381.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 24/

2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Kanpur now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of Archaeological Survey of India and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 18.02.2016.

[No. L-42012/72/2007-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS.

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-

LABOR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 24 of 2008

Sri Chhatri Kumar son of Sri Ramji Mohto

30C/33/3 Tulsi Nagar,

Gobar Chowki,

Taj Ganj, Agra.

And

The Superintending Horticulturist,

Archaeological Survey of India,

Horticulture Division no.1,

Taj Mahal, Agra.

AWARD

1. Central Government, Mol, New Delhi, vide

notification No. L42012/72/2007-IR(DU) dated 07.01.08, has

referred the following dispute for adjudication to this

tribunal.

2. Whether the action of the management of

Archaeological Survey of India, Agra in terminating the

services of their workman Sri Chhatri Kumar w.e.f. 01.12.2005

is legal and justified? If not to what relief the workman is

entitled to?

3. The claim of the worker is that he worked as

gardner under the garden of the opposite party situate at

different places at Agra during the period 09.11.02 to

30.11.2005 and in this way had rendered continuous service

for more than 240 days in each year during the above period

and had acquired a right to be appointed permanently under

866

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 27, 2016/PHALGUNA 8, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the opposite party. The opposite party terminated the

services of the worker w.e.f. 01.12.05 without any reason in

violation of the provisions of section 25F of the Act.

Opposite party have also breached the provisions of section

25G and 25H of the Act in asmuch as several juniors to the

worker are engaged in various gardens run and controlled

by the opposite party at different part of Agra, after

removing the services of the worker.

4. On the basis of above pleadings the worker has

claimed that the termination of his service is set aside and

he be reinstated in the service of the opposite party with

full back wages and continuity of service.

5. The claim of the worker has been refuted by the

opposite party, inter alia, on the ground that ASI Horticulture

Division 1, Tajmahal, Agra, is responsible for maintenance

and development of gardens around the National Protected

Monument for improvement of environment which is a part

of sovereign functions, therefore ASI is not an Industrial

Establishment. The worker had never been employed as

casual employee as gardner in ASI Horticulture Division.1

Taj Mahal Agra and their sub divisions as mentioned in the

statement of claim nor had ever completed continuous

service of 240 days preceding 12 calendar months from the

date of his termination. Daily paid agriculture mazdoors are

engaged as per requirement / need in casual and seasonal

horticulture work in the department and the nature of work

performed by the worker is not perennial but occasional,

intermittent or casual. Opposite party had never terminated

the service of the applicant with effect from 01.12.05. The

opposite party engaged daily paid casual labor from open

market for shorter period less than a month to complete

horticulture work purely of casual nature, the worker had

no lien against any post or right to claim regular and

permanent employment. Vacancies created under the

opposite party are filled up in accordance with the rules

and provisions of Government of India after following the

due procedure as laid down by ASI. Opposite party had

never issued any appointment letter to the worker and

likewise had never issued any termination letter in favour

of the worker. As the opposite party had never terminated

the services of the worker 01.12.2005, therefore, question

of breach of the relevant provision of the Act does not

arise. It is also denied that the worker had ever completed

240 days of continuous service preceding 12 calendar

months from the date of his termination. The claim of the

worker do not fall within the term of Industrial Dispute

hence is not tenable before this tribunal. Worker is also not

a workman under the provision of section 2(s) of the Act,

therefore, the claim of the worker suffers from serious

latches and being so the same is devoid of merit and is

therefore, liable to be rejected.

6. The worker vide his application paper no.7/1-2

has summoned original sheet voucher from November 02

to November 05 from the management which was allowed.

The management did not file the summoned documents

and filed an affidavit that these documents are not

traceable.

7. Worker has also filed certain photocopies of

documents along with his claim petition.

8. Opportunity to adduce evidence by the worker

was closed by order dated 05.05.15 as he did not turn up in

the court.

9. I have heard the arguments of the parties at length

and have also perused the records carefully.

10. From the records of the case it reveals that as the

worker did not adduce evidence, management also made

an endorsement on the order sheet that they will also not

adduce any evidence in the case.

11.Therefore, it is a case where none of the contesting

parties have adduced their respective evidence

documentary or oral to prove their cases.

12.Therefore, as the worker has completely failed to

prove his case and further failed to adduce evidence to

prove the fact that he had worked continuously for 240

days preceding 12 calendar months from the date of

termination of his service, he cannot be held entitled for

any relief for want of evidence and proof.

13.Therefore, reference is decided against the worker

and it is held that he is not entitled for the relief claimed by

him.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 22 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 382-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fganqLrku

,jksukWfVDl fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la- 30@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

18-02-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&14011@10@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 22nd February, 2016

S.O. 382.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 30/

2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Kanpur now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 18.02.2016.

[No. L-14011/10/2015-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 27] 2016@iQkYxqu 8] 1937

867

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS.

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOR COURT,

KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 30 of 2015

General Secretary.

Hindustan Aeronautics Employees Union,

H..A.L. Air Force Station,

Agra.

And

The Additional General Manager,

Hindustan Aeronautics Limited,

H..A.L. Air Force Station,

Agra.

AWARD

1. Central Government by notification No.

L-14011/10/2015 (IR(DU) dated 16.06.15, has referred the

following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.

2. Whether the action of the management of

Hindustan Aeronautics Limited in not making payment of

incentive bonus @4200 per month, not making payment of

over time to the employees employed at Agra Unit and non

grant of seniority to the Ex-servicemen employed at Agra

Unit is just fair and legal? If not, to what relief the workmen

concerned are entitled to?

3. Instant case was fixed for filing written statement

on behalf of the management but the union moved an

application supported with affidavit praying to close the

proceedings of the case, as the case is not pressed by the

union.

4. The secretary of the union who had moved the

application was directed to file evidence that he is the

General Secretary of the Union and the case was fixed for

hearing on 17.11.2015. Evidence was filed on behalf of the

union that the person moving the application is the General

Secretary of the Union raising the present dispute.

5. Considering the facts of the case prayer of the

General Secretary is allowed and the case is decided as not

pressed holding that the union will not be entitled for any

relief pursuant to the present claim petition.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 22 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 383-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj 24 bfDoiesaV

fMiks] ,;j iQkslZ ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la- 108@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 18-02-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&13012@01@2012&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 22nd February, 2016

S.O. 383.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 108/

2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Kanpur now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of 24 Equipment Depot, Air Force and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 18.02.2016.

[No. L-13012/01/2012-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS,

PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOR COURT,

KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 108 of 2014

In the matter of dispute between-

Sri Nirajan Naik,

Vyusena Karamchari Sangthan,

Manauri,

Office, 9-A Jhapia near Shiv Mandir,

Bamrauli, Allahabad.

And

The Officer Commanding,

24 Equipment Depot, Air Force,

Manauri, Allahabad.

A W A R D

1. Central Government, Mol, New Delhi, vide

notification No. L-13012/01/2012-IR(DU) dated 01.09.2014,

has referred the following dispute to this tribunal for

adjudication.

2. Whether the action of the management of Air

Force Manauri, Allahabad in not forming the works

committee is justified? If not, to what relief the concerned

union is entitled?

3. In the instant case after receipt of reference order,

notices were sent to the parties for filing their respective

written statement. But when till 31.04.15 union has not filed

any claim petition, it was given one more opportunity to

file statement of claim and notice to this effect was issued

on 3^rd August 2015 fixing 09.09.2015 for filing of the claim

petition by the union.

868

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 27, 2016/PHALGUNA 8, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

4. On 09.09.2015, when the case was taken up for

hearing, neither any one appeared from the side of the

union nor was any statement of claim filed in the case. It

thus appears that the union is not interested in prosecuting

its case.

5. Under the facts and circumstances of the case,

tribunal concludes that the reference is liable to be decided

against the union for want of pleadings and proof.

6. Accordingly reference is decided against the

Union.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 22 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 384-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj us'kuy

gfxok;~l vFkkWfjVh vkWiQ bafM;k ,aM vkFklZ ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼

fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;]

dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 04@2010) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18-02-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@87@2009&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 22nd February, 2016

S.O. 384.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 04/

2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Kanpur now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of National Highways Authority of India &

others and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 18.02.2016.

[No. L-42012/87/2009-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOR COURT,

KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 04 of 2010

Between :

Abdul Hameed

RO 124 Sanyar Gate, Monibala,

Jhansi.

And

1.The Project Director,

National Highways Authority of India,

Satish Nagar,

Jhansi.

2.The Team Leader,

M/s. Gayatri Project,

DH 1/13 Virangana Nagar,

JDA Colony,

Jhansi.

AWARD

1. Central Government, Mol, New Delhi, vide

notification No.L-42012/87/2009-IR(DU) dated 08.01.2010,

has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this

tribunal.

2. Whether the action of the management of M/s

Gayatri Projects Limited, Jhansi in terminating the services

of Sri Abdul Hamed son of Late Mohd. Ishaq Sheikh w.e.f.

07.11.08 is legal and justified? If not what relief the workman

is entitled to?

3. It is pertinent to note that in the present case

none appeared on behalf of opposite party No.1 nor any

reply was filed on their behalf.

4. The worker has filed his claim petition which was

replied by opposite party No.2 by filing written statement.

5. After exchange of pleadings between the parties

neither the worker appeared for his evidence nor any

evidence was given by the opposite party No.2. Therefore,

it would be a futile exercise on the part of the tribunal to

detain the facts of the case.

6. As there is no evidence from either side it appears

that the worker is not interested in prosecuting his claim

otherwise he would have certainly adduced his evidence

in the case.

7. Therefore, reference is bound to be answered in

favour of opposite party No. 2 and against the opposite

party No.1 and the workman for want of proof and pleadings

on behalf of opposite party No.1.

8. Accordingly, it is held that the worker is not

entitled for the relief claimed by him for want of proof.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 22 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 385-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkWMZusUl

iQSDVªh ,aM vkFklZ ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la- 05@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

18-02-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&14012@35@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 27] 2016@iQkYxqu 8] 1937

869

New Delhi, the 22nd February, 2016

S.O. 385.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 05/

2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Kanpur now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of Ordnance Factory & others and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 18.02.2016.

[No. L-14012/35/2013-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL

GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-

LABOR COURT, KANPUR

Present : Sri Shubhendra Kumar, HJS

Industrial Dispute No.05 of 2014

Between-

Sri Ravindra son of Chiraunji Lal,

Resident of 232 E Bargadiyapurwa,

Panki, Kanpur, U. P.

And

1.Senior General Manager,

Ordnance Factory,

Kalpi Road,

Kanpur,

2.Sri Bhupender Singh,

Son of Awadesh Singh,

Resident of EWS 2508,

Awas Vikas Kalyanpur,

Kanpur

A W A R D

1. Central Government, Mol Employment New Delhi,

vide Notification No.L-14012/35/2013-IR(DU) dated

22.01.2014, has referred the following dispute to this

tribunal.

2. Whether the action of the management of

Sri Bhupender Singh, Kanpur, in terminating the services

of Sri Ravindra son of Chiraunji Lal workman with effect

from 14.04.2014 is just fair and legal? If not, to what relief

the workman concerned is entitled to?

3. The concerned workman in the present case after

filing of his claim statement moved an affidavit 22.11.2014,

on 07.01.15, in the case stating therein that he is not

interested to continue with the case and without any

pressure he wants to withdraw his claim.

4. In view of above, the tribunal has no option but

to allow the request of the workman and the reference is

decided as not pressed against the workman.

5. Accordingly it is held that the workman is not

entitled for any relief pursuant to the present reference

order.

6. Reference is decided accordingly against the

workman.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 22 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 386-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkxjk lsaVªy

ifCyd oDlZ fMikVZesaV ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la- 18@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

18-02-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42011@127@2011&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 22nd February, 2016

S.O. 386.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 18/

2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Kanpur now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of Agra Central Public Works Department and

their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 18.02.2016.

[No. L-42011/127/2011-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS,

PRESIDING OFFICER. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOR COURT,

KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 18 of 2012

Between-

Zonal President,

All India CPWD (MRM) Karamchari Sangthan,

House No. 4823, Gali No. 13,

Balbir Nagar Extn,

Shahdara,

Delhi.-110032.

And

870

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 27, 2016/PHALGUNA 8, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The Suptd. Engineer,

Agra Central Public Works Department,

Sanjay Place,

Agra.

AWARD

1. Central Government, Mol, New Delhi, vide

notification No. L-42011/127/2011-IR(DU) dt. 03.02.12, has

referred the following dispute for adjudication to this

tribunal.

2. Whether the action of the management of Suptd.

Engineer CPWD, Agra in not regularizing the services of

Sri Satendra Singh Motor Lorry Driver as claimed by the

Union is legal and justified. What relief the workman is

entitled to and from which date?

3. By a bare perusal of the reference order it appears

that the same is defective or not properly drafted in as

much as date of regularizing the service of the workman

has not been mentioned in it. Even if for a moment it is

presumed that the claim is maintainable and claim is liable

to be allowed then a normal question would arise before

the tribunal as to from which date worker should be ordered

to be regularized in the service of the opposite party. In

that situation the claimant could not be granted the relief

claimed by him in the claim statement. From this point of

view, it is held that the reference order is defective.

4. Be that as it may, in short the worker in his claim

statement has alleged that on the basis of work order he

was appointed to drive government vehicle on 20.05.06.

The worker worked till 27.10.98 as such and with effect

from 28.10.98, the opposite party instead of giving him

work order started driving the vehicle through contractor

and the vehicle is still being driven through the person of

contractor. It is also alleged that the worker has made a

representation on 27.02.2001 before the authorities of the

opposite party for his regularization in the service of the

opposite party but the same stands un-replied. Apart from

prescribed working hours, the worker was also utilized to

perform overtime duty but no payment was given to him

by the opposite party. It is also pleaded that other persons

similarly situated like the worker were regularized in the

service of the opposite party under court orders.

5. On the basis of above it has been prayed that

worker be declared to be permanent at appropriate post

from the date when he was engaged and he be also given

wages and allowances admissible to the post.

6. The claim of the worker has been refuted by the

management on the ground that the worker was employed

by the agency/contractor on the terms and conditions of

contract for providing services to the department for driving

office vehicles and in the present case the agency is the

principle employer as agency directly employed the worker.

It is made clear here that supply of contract labour by the

agency to the department in the instant case does not ipso

facto create any employment by the department itself in

favor of the contract labour supplied by the agency. The

worker was never appointed by the employer on the post

of Motor Lorry Driver and the worker had never worked on

the pay roll of the department as he was never in the service

of the department. Worker was never issued any

appointment letter by the opposite party in any capacity.

Worker did not hold any permanent post under the opposite

party. Worker was never an employee of the department

hence the question of his regularization in the service of

the department does not arise and he was never an

employee of the department in any form either muster roll,

hand receipt or work order. The statement of claim filed by

the union on behalf of the worker is highly misconceived.

It is further stated that creation of post and sanction of

regular appointment against such post is the sovereign

function of the management and such function should

normally not be interfered by the courts nor curtailed nor

the right of the management to create and sanction a regular

post can be the subject matter of a valid industrial dispute

under section 2(k) of the Act for compelling the management

to create and sanction new posts nor can they demand for

their regularization or appointment in the absence of any

vacancy in any regular sanctioned post and it is only when

sanctioned regular posts are vacant that they can claim

priority in appointment vis-à-vis direct recruitment subject

to their eligibility and suitability and even then the

management will be the sole judge in matter of appointment.

7. On the basis of above pleadings it has been

prayed by the management that the present claim of the

union should be rejected being devoid of merit.

8. The worker along with his claim statement has

filed papers bearing number 5/5-66. Management vide paper

no.9/1 has also filed two documents.

9. The worker along with his written evidence has

also filed 11/4-10. The management has also filed his

evidence on affidavit.

10. The worker has examined himself as w.w.1 in

support of his claim whereas opposite party has examined

Sri Soran Singh as m.w.1. Both the witnesses have

supported their respective claim in their examination in

chief.

11. In his cross examination worker has admitted that

for the post of lorry driver department has not advertised

the post in any news paper but he was given work order.

He denied the suggestion that in para 3 of his claim

statement word contractor mentioned is correct. He

admitted that on paper no.5/7-11 his signatures appears in

place of contractor. He also admitted that he has not

mentioned the date on which he was engaged as lorry

driver. No record relating for completion of 240 days of

continuous service is filed.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 27] 2016@iQkYxqu 8] 1937

871

12. M.W.1 in his cross examination has admitted that

on paper no.5/7-15 there appears signature of the worker

which are the work orders issued by the department. Rest

evidence of the witness appears to be not relevant to decide

the present case, hence they are ignored.

13. I have heard the arguments of both the parties at

length and have also gone through the record of the case

carefully.

14. As already observed in the opening para of this

award that the formation of the terms of reference order is

defective in as-much-as no date of regularizing the service

of the worker is mentioned. This is a fatal defect in the

reference order which cannot be cured by this tribunal.

Even in his evidence also worker has not mentioned any

date from which he is claiming his regularization in the

service of the opposite party.

15. Worker has himself has filed documents to show

his working with the department which are paper no. 5/7-

15, but these documents filed by the worker establishes

the case of the management that he never remained in the

direct employment of the opposite party rather it establishes

the fact that he was a contractor himself and his services

were taken by the management through contract. Paper

no.5/5 clearly establishes the fact that contract was given

to Satendra Singh & Company on which worker Satendra

Singh has signed as contractor in which it is also one of

the condition of contract that this order of the contract can

be cancelled any time without giving any notice and that

this work order will not be applicable for treating him in

Government job.

16. Hon’ble High Court Allahabad in 2007(113) FLR

616 Firoz Khan versus State of U.P. has held that mere

continuous working for 240 days of service with contractor

could not vest them with any legal right of absorption or

regularization.

17. Therefore, for the reasons given above, it is held

that the reference order is defective and even on merit it is

found that the worker was never employed directly by the

opposite party in any capacity or he was neither given any

appointment letter or salary through muster roll, therefore,

the claim of the worker is highly misconceived and

misleading and is liable to be rejected. As such the claim of

the worker is rejected and it is also held that he will not be

entitled for any relief as claimed by him.

18. Reference is accordingly answered against the

union / worker and in favor of the management.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 22 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 387-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr lapkj

fuxe fyfeVsM] Hkksiky ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV

(lanHkZ dsl la- lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@108@2002) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18-02-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40011@04@2002&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 22nd February, 2016

S.O. 387.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No.

CGIT/LC/R/108/2002) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal/Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the

Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of Department of

Telecommunication and their workman, which was received

by the Central Government on 18.02.2016.

[No. L-40011/04/2002-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/108/2002

Shri Gulam Rasul, President,

National Federation of Telecom Employees,

Line staff and Group D

Tikamgarh. ...Workman

Versus

District Telecom Engineer,

D/o Telecom,

Chhattarpur (MP) ...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 2^nd day of February, 2016

1. As per letter dated 18-7-02 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-40011/

4/2002-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the management of District Engineer

Telecom, Chhattarpur (MP) in terminating the services

of Shri Girish Kumar Raikwar S/o Shri Babulal Raikwar

w.e.f. 6-10-99 instead of regularizing the services of

the workman is just and legal? If not, to what relief

the workman is entitled?”

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim

at Pages 2/1 to 2/4. Case of Ist party workman is that he

872

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 27, 2016/PHALGUNA 8, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

was employed in Grade B post on establishment of 2^nd

party management from 22-1-88. His services were utilized

by management for various work. He was in continuous

employment till 6-10-99. He completed 240 days service

during each of the calendar year. Workman contends that

he attained regular status. Management refused to

regularize his services. Dispute under section 8 of ID Act

was raised by Union. During pendency of conciliation

proceedings, his services were terminated in violation of

Section 33 of ID Act. The complaint was submitted to

Conciliation Officer regarding termination of his services.

Said proceeding is pending.

3. Workman submits that he was claiming

regularization in service in conciliation proceeding which

was pending. His services were terminated in violation of

Section 33-A of ID Act. Management had not complied

Section 25-F of ID Act. He was not given opportunity before

terminating his services. Termination of his service is illegal.

On such ground, workman prays for reinstatement with

consequential benefits.

4. 2^nd party management filed Written Statement at

Pages 8/1 to 8/2 opposing claim of workman. 2^nd party

submits that department of telecom was converted into

Public Undertaking called BSNL from 1-10-2000. The

management of BSNL after consultation with the Union

reviewed method of registration of Union issuing notice

dated 4-10-02. That present dispute is raised by Gulam

Rasul, President, National Federation of Telecom Employees

Line Staff and Group D. No such Union is recognized in

BSNL. The dispute is raised by unrecognized Union is not

tenable. 2^nd party reiterates that workman was never

appointed by the department. He had not completed 240

days service during any of the calendar year. The workman

had not rendered service on casual basis or otherwise

neither he was appointed by department. Workman was

not terminated by any order in violation of ID Act.

Management prays that claim of Ist party workman is devoid

of merit.

5. Considering pleadings on record, the points

which arise for my consideration and determination are as

under. My findings are recorded against each of them for

the reasons as below:-

(i) Whether the management of

Termination of

District Engineer Telecom,

workman in violation

Chhattarpur (MP) in terminating of Section 25-F is

the services of Shri Girish

not established.

Kumar Raikwar S/o Shri Babulal

Raikwar w.e.f. 6-10-99 instead

of regularizing the services of

the workman is just and legal?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman Workman is not

is entitled to?”

entitled to any

relief.

REASONS

6. Ist party workman is challenging termination of

his service for violation of Section 25-F, 33 of ID Act.

Management of 2^nd party had denied appointment or

engagement of Ist party workman. The application for

production of document was submitted by Ist party on

29-8-07. As per order dated 25-6-09, Ist party workman was

given liberty of adducing secondary evidence.

7. Workman has filed affidavit of his evidence

supporting his claim that he was in continuous employment

of the management of 2^nd party from 22-1-88. He was

continuously working till 6-10-99. He had completed more

than 240 days in each of the calendar year. His request for

regularization was not allowed. He had raised dispute. The

dispute was raised before Conciliation Officer during

pendency of conciliation proceeding. His services were

terminated in violation of Section 33 of ID Act. His services

were terminated in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. No

chargesheet was issued to him. No enquiry was conducted

against him. In his cross-examination, workman says he

passed HSc, IIT Exam, he could not read English. In his

further cross-examination, workman says the post on which

he was working was not advertised. No oral interview was

conducted. Appointment letter was not given to him. He

denies that he was not appointed by the department.

8. Affidavit of witness Shankar Kohekar is filed on

behalf of workman. In his affidavit, he corroborates that

workman Gulam Rasul was working at Teekamgarh from

January, 1988. Workman as working as peon in Sub

Divisional Officer, Microwave Station till October, 1999. In

his cross-examination, witness on behalf of Ist party says

that he was appointed on 1-6-76. He was not working in

Microwave Station. He was working at Sagar from

1-6-76. In 1992, he worked at Preetamgarh but he did not

work in Microwave station. His duty hours was from 9.30

AM to 5.30 PM. He worked under Shri M.K.Jain, Shri

B.L.Shukla & M. P. Srivastava, appointment letter was

issued to him. He claims ignorance whether workman was

issued appointment letter or not. He has friendship with

workman therefore he appeared as a witness. He was

receiving full salary. His attendance was maintained in the

employees. He denies that workman Girish Kumar Raikwar

did not work in Telecom office and he is giving false

evidence being friend of workman. The evidence in cross-

examination of witness of Ist party clearly shows that he

was working at Sagar and Preetamgarh. He did not work at

Microwave station where pleading and evidence of

workman is on the point that workman was working at

District Telecom office, Teekamgarh when witness was not

working at Teekamgarh, the evidence of witness of Ist

party corroborates evidence of workman at Teekamgarh.

9. Management filed affidavit of evidence of Shri

Kameswar Singh, S/o Shri G.D.Singh. Management’s

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 27] 2016@iQkYxqu 8] 1937

873

witness in his affidavit of evidence submits that workman

was never appointed by management. Workman not

rendered services on casual basis or otherwise there was

no question of his working for 240 days in a calendar year.

In his cross-examination, management’s witness says he is

not acquainted with workman. He was posted at

Teekamgarh from 6-10-99 to Sept-01 as SDO. During 1988

to 1999, casual labours were not working with 2^nd party.

Temporary employees were engaged and such employees

were given regular status. Any casual labour was not

engaged. The muster roll of temporary employees was

maintained. He had not seen muster roll for such employees

for the period 88 to 99. Further evidence of management’s

witness in his cross-examination is on the point he was

unable to tell who was working as SDO from 88 to 89. He

had not received information from SDO working during

period 1988 to 1999. Log book Register, Telephone shifting

not maintained. The evidence in cross-examination of

management’s witness is not advancing that the workman

was working for more than 240 days in a year in Telecom

Department from 1988 to 1999. Though Ist party workman

has produced large number of copies of documents,

workman did not adduce any valid evidence to prove those

copies. Therefore the copies of documents produced by

workman cannot be considered. The evidence of workman

is not corroborated by any documentary evidence about

his working at Teekamgarh from 1988 to October, 1999.

10. Shri A.K.Shashi submitted copy of award in

R/188/01 for my perusal and consideration.

In said reference, workman Shri Jai Prakash Bharati

was allowed regularization with 25 % backwages. From

reading of Para-13 of said award, it is clear that the evidence

in said reference was cogent that the workman worked for

240 days during each of the year.

In present case, the evidence adduced by workman

and his witness is not cogent about working for more than

240 days during each of the year by the workman. Therefore

copy of award cannot be relied even for persuasion purpose.

Shri A.K.Shashi relies on ratio held in case of Anoop

Sharma versus Executive Engineer, Public Health Division

No.1, Panipat (Haryana) in 2010(5)SCC-497. The careful

reading of the ratio held in the case is that employer had

failed to prove compliance with clause (a) and (b) of Section

25-F.

The facts of present case are not comparable.

Therefore ratio held in the case cannot be applied to case

at hand.

Shri A.K.Shashi relies on ratio held in case of

Bhilwara dugdh Utpadak Sahakari S.Ltd. versus Vinod

Kumar Sharma in 2011-IV-LLJ-292(SC). Ratio held in above

cited case pertains to denial of right of workman held that

employer resorted to subterfuge to avoid liabilities.

The facts of present case are not comparable. The

ratio cannot be applied to case at hand.

11. Shri M.P.Kapoor counsel for management

submitted copy of award in R/59/04.

In Para 13 of the award, it was observed that there

was no cogent evidence about completion of 240 days

service except own affidavit of the labours.

Even in present case, the evidence of Ist party

workman and his witness is not cogent about completion

of more than 240 days service.

12. As 2^nd party has totally denied engagement of Ist

party workman even as casual and evidence of workman

and his witness is not cogent to establish his working for

more than 240 days during the period 1988 to 1999. For

want of cogent evidence about working more than 240

days preceding 12 calendar months of the alleged

termination in October 99, the termination of Ist party

workman in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act is not

established. Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.1.

13. In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1) The termination of workman in violation of

Section 25-F of ID Act is not established.

(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 388-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ Hkkjrh;

thou chek fuxe ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dksydkrk ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la- 59@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 23-02-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&17012@17@2013&vkbZvkj (,eº

uohu diwj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 24th February, 2016

S.O. 388.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 59/

2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Kolkata now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Life Insurance Corporation of India

and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 23.02.2016.

[No. L-17012/17/2013-IR (M)]

NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.

874

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 27, 2016/PHALGUNA 8, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 59 of 2013

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of

Life Insurance Corporation of India

A N D

Their workmen

Present: Justice Dipak Saha Ray, Presiding Officer

Appearance:

On behalf of the : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, AAO.

Management

On behalf of the : Ms. Samrajny Konar, concerned

Workmen workman in person.

State: West Bengal. Industry: Insurance.

Dated: 17^th February, 2016.

AWARD

By Order No. L-17012/17/2013-IR(M) dated 28.10.2013

the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of

its powers under Section 10(1)(d) and (2A) of the industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute to this

Tribunal for adjudication:

“Whether the action of the Management of Life

Insurance Corporation of India in terminating the

services of Smt. Samrajny Konar, working as

Development Officer on probation, is legal and

justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?”

2. In this case the LIC/management has filed a

petition challenging the maintainability of the reference.

Concerned workman has also filed written objection against

the said petition.

3. Heard both sides.

4. Perused the instant petition and the written

objection thereto. Perused also the decision of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court passed on 11.03.2015 in connection with

Civil Appeal Nos. 5690 – 5691 of 2010 with Civil Appeal

Nos. 6547 – 6549 of 2010 which has been filed alongwith

the petition.

5. Authorized representative of the LIC/management

submits that the instant case is not maintainable as per the

decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court because Smt.

Samrajny Konar who is claiming herself as a workman, is

not a workman under the provision of Section 2(s) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

6. Concerned workman submits that the instant

reference was initiated long before passing the aforesaid

decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which has got no

retrospective effect and as such the said decision is not

applicable in this case.

7. Considered.

8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid

decision has observed that “In view of the aforesaid

analysis, we conclude and hold that the development

officers working in the LIC are not ‘workmen’ under Section

2(s) of the Act and accordingly, we do not find any flaw in

the judgment rendered by the High Court.” (Paragraph 17

of the aforesaid judgment). So from this judgment it is clear

that Development Officer working in the LIC cannot be

treated as workman under the provision of Section 2(s) of

the Act.

9. Considering the aforesaid decision with reference

to the contention of the workman in question it appears

that the argument as advanced by concerned workman

has no merit at all when the Hon’ble Supreme Court has

cleared that the Development Officer of LIC is not a

workman.

10. Considering the above facts and circumstances

and since Smt. Samrajny Konar is not a workman as per

provision of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947, instant reference is not maintainable and accordingly

the reference is rejected.

An Award is passed accordingly.

JUSTICE DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer

Dated, Kolkata,

The 17^th February, 2016.

ubZ fnYyh] 24 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 389-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ Hkkjrh;

thou chek fuxe ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la- 26@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 23-02-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&17012@34@2011&vkbZvkj (,eº

uohu diwj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 24th February, 2016

S.O. 389.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 26/

2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Kanpur now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Life Insurance Corporation and their

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 27] 2016@iQkYxqu 8] 1937

875

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 23.02.2016.

[No. L-17012/34/2011-IR (M)]

NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, PRESIDING

OFFICER, HJS, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOR COURT,

KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 26 of 2012

Between-

Sri Ramu,

Son of late Sri Kali Charan,

27/25 Roti Godam,

Birhana Road,

Kanpur.

And

The Divisional Manager,

LIC of India,

Divisional Office,

MG Marg,

Kanpur.

A W A R D

1. Central Government, Mol, New Delhi vide

notification No.L-17012/34/2011-IR (M) dated 13.03.12, has

referred the following dispute for adjudication to this

tribunal-

2. Whether the action of the management of LIC of

India, in terminating the services of Sri Ramu, with effect

from 01.06.2011 is legal & justified? What relief the workman

is entitled to?

3. It is the case of the worker that he was appointed

as daily wager on 16.04.91, by the opposite party at the

post of sweeper and he worked continuously as is clear

from the certificate issued by the opposite party. He raised

his demand for declaring him regular and permanent before

the authorities of the opposite party but all in vain. Senior

Divisional Manager of the opposite party vide letter dated

15.05.07 had also recommended the workman to declare

him as part time employee but his recommendation was

ignored by the opposite party. As the worker is working

continuously for the last 20 year he again raised his voice

for giving appointment but his request was ignored.

Authorities of the opposite party started expectation from

the worker to work beggar at the residence of the officers

and when he demanded separate payment for doing begar

then the authorities of the opposite party became annoyed

against him and he was removed from the service with

effect from 01.06.2011, without any notice or without

showing any reasonable cause which is unfair labor practice

thereby he is entitled for reinstatement with continuity of

service and back wages.

4. In reply it is alleged by the opposite party that the

worker had never been appointed after holding due

selection procedure and that he is not a workman. No cause

of action exists in favour of the worker as he himself had

not turned up for work. Management has denied the

contention of the worker that they wanted to take work at

the residence of the officers of the opposite party. The

worker worked intermittently of his own choice and he was

highly irregular. The worker stopped coming from 21.05.11

and left the work. It has been denied by the opposite party

that at any point of time they had terminated the services

of the worker and what to say with effect from 01.06.11. As

the worker has not been terminated by the management,

there is no illegality in their action and the reference is

liable to be decided against the worker.

5. Worker has filed rejoinder but nothing new has

been mentioned therein.

6. The worker vide paper no.11/2 has filed

11 documents.

7. Whereas worker has examined himself as w.w.1

management has examined Sri S K Mishra as M.W.1.

8. I have heard the arguments of the parties at length

and have also gone through the entire record carefully.

9. Worker W.W.1, in his examination in chief has

supported his claim. In his cross-examination witness has

admitted the fact that without any letter of interview or test

he was engaged by the opposite party. He was paid his

wages at Rs.1100/- per month from 1991 to 01.04.2011

continuously. He also confirmed that paper No.11/10 and

11/11 are the copies of payment vouchers and paper No.11/

13 bears the signature of the Branch Manager. He has

denied the suggestion that he removed the copy of the

documents rather copy of documents were given to him by

a clerk and he does not remember the name of the clerk. He

also denied that the documents filed by him are fake. He

admitted the fact that when he denied to do beggar at the

residence of the officers of the opposite party he was

removed from the service of the opposite party with effect

from 01.06.11. He has also denied the fact that no

documentary evidence with regard to his working has been

filed by him. He also denied the suggestion that he had

simply worked a part time sweeper for 2 hours only. He also

denied the factum that he had not completed 240 days of

continuous service preceding the date of his termination.

10. Worker by his application dated 06.06.13 has

summoned 11 documents from the management. The

management filed objection stating therein that despite

sincere efforts the called for documents are not traceable.

The tribunal by order dated 18.12.14 disposed of the

876

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 27, 2016/PHALGUNA 8, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

application holding that necessary inference shall be drawn

at the appropriate stage.

11. M.W.1 in his statement on affidavit has supported

the case of the opposite party. In his cross examination the

witness has admitted that from the record it is clear that

when ever there was necessity worker was called for

sweeping work. His statement is on the bais of documents

filed by the worker. Witness has stated that paper no.11/3

filed by the worker is forged and fake. Witness has also

admitted that the name of the worker appears on some

documents because in this document the name of the worker

was added and date of his work is mentioned as 16.04.91.

Witness has also admitted the fact that persons mentioned

at serial no.1 to 4 are in the employment of the management.

12.Therefore, from the pleadings and evidence of

the parties it is established that the worker remained in the

employment of the opposite party continuously as sweeper.

13. It is the contention of the management that

document paper no.11/3 filed by the worker is forged and

fake as the name of the worker appears to have been added

and the years have not been found mentioned in serial. On

the contrary it is contended that this document has been

prepared and signed by the then branch manager. On

carefull examination of paper no.11/3, I find no force in the

contention of the management that it is a fake document

because writing appearing on this documents appears to

have been written by one and same person including the

name of the worker. It also appears that due to inadvertence

date of working of the worker as 16.04.91 has been

mentioned at serial no.5. It is not a good ground to

disbelieve the documents. It may also be pointed out here

that the documents summoned by the worker have

deliberately been not filed by the management with the

sole intention that if the summoned documents are filed in

original it will improve the case of the worker.

14.Management has failed to file original document

against paper no.11/3 filed by the worker to establish that

the name of worker was added afterwards. Therefore,

document paper no.11/3 filed by the worker cannot be

accepted to be forged document as management failed to

controvert it by producing the original one.

15. Documents paper no.11/8, 11/10, 11/11, 11/13-14

are the photocopies of payment vouchers.

16. Management in its written statement has admitted

in clear words that worker worked till 20.05.11 but due to

illness and his treatment he absented from 21.05.11. It is

also established that worker was daily wager but he was

receiving his wages month wise and not daily for daily

work. As such he will be treated as daily wager receiving

his consolidate payment monthly as appears from the

vouchers filed by the worker.

17. Management neither in the pleadings or evidence

has denied the continuous working of the worker. Worker

in his evidence has clearly stated that he had completed

240 days of continuously and he has been removed by the

management without any notice or showing any cause

with effect from 01.06.2006.

18. Therefore, in view of above discussion it is

established that the worker had completed 240 days of

continuous service preceding the date of his termination

and that he was neither given any notice nor retrenchment

compensation by the management at the time of his

dispensation of service. Therefore, the action of the

management cannot be held to be just legal and fair.

19. Management has placed reliance in the case of

Shivanand versus Presiding Officer, Labor Court,

Allahabad, reported in 2008(117)FLR 523 in which the

Hon’ble High Court has held that a daily wager has no

legal right to claim continuity of service.

20. As such having regard to the decision of the

Hon’ble High Court (supra) worker cannot be granted

continuity of service being engaged as a daily wager.

21. From the above discussion, it is established that

the worker has been able to prove his case; as such he is

entitled for reinstatement with full back wages but without

continuity of service.

22. Reference is therefore decided in favor of the

worker and against the management.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 390-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ vks-,u-

th-lh- fyfeVsM vkSj nwljksa ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn

ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 1361@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 23-02-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30012@28@2001&vkbZvkj (,e)º

uohu diwj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 24th February, 2016

S.O. 390.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1361/

2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. O.N.G.C. Ltd. and others and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 23.02.2016.

[No. L-30012/28/2001-IR (M)]

NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 27] 2016@iQkYxqu 8] 1937

877

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present….

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 8^th February, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No-1361/2004

Reference: (ITC) No- 15/2001

1. The Group General Manager (P),

ONGC Ltd.,

Hazira Project,

P.O. Bhatpore,

Surat (Gujarat)- 394518

2.M/s Paradise Refrigeration

G-5, Orion House,

Behind Resham Bhavan, Laldarwajam

Surat (Gujarat)-395003

3.M/s Airon Corporation,

Rajmahal Road,

Rhode’s Khancha Corner, Baroda,

Surat (Gujarat) -390001

….First Party

Vs.

Their Workman

Shri Navasuddin Maiyaddin Shaikh,

22, Barafkal,

Opp. Rander Bus Shop,

Randergam,

Surat (Gujarat)

….Second Party

For the First Party:

For the Second Party:

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour ,New

Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L- 30012/28/2001-

IR(M) dated 22.03.2001 referred the dispute for adjudication

to the Industrial Tribunal, Surat (Gujarat) in respect of the

matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of ONGC

Ltd., through its Contractor M/s Airon Corpn., in

terminating the services of Sh. Navasuddin

Maiyuddin Shaikh, ‘Attendant/operator (A/c plant)

w.e.f. 30.11.2000, is proper and justified? If not, to

what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?”

“2. Whether the demand of the workman

Sh. Navasuddin Maiyuddin Shaikh in considering

him as direct/regular employee of ONGC Ltd w.e.f.

the date of his entry in the services is legal, proper

and justified? If so, to what relief the concerned

workman is entitled to and from which date and

what other directions are necessary in the matter?”

2. This reference dates back to 22.03.2001. Both the

parties are served and they filed the statement of claim and

written statement respectively. On 13.01.2016 Bhartiya

Mazdoor Sangh moved an application (Ext.21) along with

application (Ext.22 and 23) on behalf OF Sunil A. Patel and

6 others for withdrawal from the reference which was in

order and was allowed by the Tribunal. Date was fixed for

08.02.2016. Mr. D. M. Patel, General Secretary, Surat Jilla

Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh who earlier move the applications

(Ext.21 to 23) is present in person and orally told the Tribunal

to dismiss the reference. Thus in the such circumstances,

there is no justification to proceed with the reference and

second party in person are absent and the Bhartiya Mazdoor

Sanngh has no inclination to proceed with the reference.

The reference is dismissed.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 391-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ Lokeh

iRFkj [knku ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la- 1392@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 23-02-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&29012@119@2001&vkbZvkj (,e)º

uohu diwj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 24th February, 2016

S.O. 391.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1392/

2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Swamy Stone Quarry and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 23.02.2016.

[No. L-29012/119/2001-IR (M)]

NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.

878

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 27, 2016/PHALGUNA 8, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present….

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 2^nd February, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No-1392/2004

Reference: (ITC) No- 18/2002

At Chorwad Gaun,

Post Kikkakoi,

M/s. Swamy Stone Quarry,

Opp. Madal Bus Stand,

Tal Killa Songadh,

Dhuliya Rd, Dt. Surat ….First Party

Vs.

Their Workman,

Sh. Navji Dhuliya,

C/o. Surat labour Union,

At & Post, Dr. Ambedkar Commercial Centre

111, 1^st floor, Ring Rd, Man Dharwaja,

Surat(Gujarat) ….Second Party

For the First Part : -

For the Second Party :

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour ,New

Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L- 29012/119/

2001-IR(M) dated 17.05.2002 referred the dispute for

adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Surat (Gujarat) in

respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of

M/s Swamy Stone Quarry, Surat in terminating the

services of Shri Navji Dhuliya w.e.f. 19.02.2001 is legal,

proper and justified? If not, to what relief the

concerned workman entitled to and what other

directions are necessary in the matter?”

2. This reference dates back to 17.05.2002. Both the

parties were served. Second party submitted statement of

claim (Ext.4) on 11.12.2002. First party has not filed his

written statement. But it is unfortunate that both the parties

have not been responding since 28.03.2005. Tribunal

appears to be liberal in giving opportunities to the both the

parties to take interest in the proceeding but to no result.

Thus, it appears that both parties are not interested in the

proceedings of the reference. Therefore, Tribunal has no

option but to dismiss the reference in default of the both

parties.

The reference is dismissed in default of the both

parties parties.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 392-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ vkbZ-ch-

ih-da- fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la- 1467@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 23-02-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30012@45@2003&vkbZvkj (,e)º

uohu diwj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 24th February, 2016

S.O. 392.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1467/

2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. IBP Company Ltd. and their workman,

which was received by the Central Government on

23.02.2016.

[No. L-30012/45/2003-IR (M)]

NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present….

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 10^th February, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No-1467/2004

1.M/s IBPCo Ltd, Allahabad Bank Building ,

Bombay Samachar Marg, Mumbai,

Mumbai- 400023 ….First Party

Vs.

Their Workman

Sh. Suresh C. Shukla,

A-3 Akhanand Apartments,

Krishnakunj Society,

Street No. 2,

Palanpur Patia,

Surat (Gujarat) -395009 ….Second Party

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 27] 2016@iQkYxqu 8] 1937

879

For the First Party : Sh. J.I. Shah, Advocate

For the Second Party :

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour ,New

Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L- 30012/45/2003-

IR(M) dated 11.12.2003 referred the dispute for adjudication

to the Industrial Tribunal, Surat (Gujarat) in respect of the

matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of the workman Shri Suresh

C. Shukla for reinstatement in service with 100% back

wages is legal, proper and justified? If so, to what

relief the concerned workman is entitled and from

which date and what other directions are necessary

in the matter?”

2. This reference dates back to 11.12.2003. Both the

parties were served and filed their statement of claim (Ext.3)

and written statement (Ext.6) respectively. First party also

moved an application (Ext.6) raising the preliminary points

1 to 4 given in the written statement (Ext.6) which are as

under:

(1) That, the reference of the second party is not

correct and not maintainable in the eye of law.

(2) That the Ministry of Labour, New Delhi has no

jurisdiction or authority to refer this type of

dispute to Industrial Tribunal at Ahmedabad.

(3) There is no Industrial dispute between first party

and second party U/s. 2(K) of the Industrial

Dispute Act, 1947, therefore on this preliminary

point alone the reference deserves to be rejected.

(4) That the second party was engaged as contractor

upon the quotation of the second party and

initially the contract period was for one year

effective from 01-01-1993, therefore there is no

employer and employee relation between the first

party and the second party. Therefore in absence

of employer and employee relationship the

reference referred by the Central Government is

not maintainable and deserves to be rejected.

3. Second party sought time for filing reply to the

aforesaid application (Ext.6) but despite a lapse of seven

years, he did not prefer to file the reply.

4. Here, I would like to reproduce the provisions of

section 2(K) of the Industrial Disputes Act which are as

under:

“industrial dispute” means any dispute or difference

between employers and employers, or between

employers and workmen , or between workmen and

workmen, which is connected with the employment

or non-employment or the terms of employment or

with the conditions of labour, of any person.

5. The perusal of the aforesaid provision, it indicates

that there must be an employer employee relationship

between the party for raising any industrial dispute.

Statement of claim (Ext.3) indicates that second party was

engaged as a contract worker with whom first party enter

into contract while first party in his written statement (Ext.6)

stated that second party was engaged as contractor upon

the quotation of the second party and the contract period

was initially for one year with effect from 01.01.1991.

Therefore, there was no employer-employee relationship

between the parties. And second party did not prefer to file

any objection. Thus, the application (Ext.7) deserves to be

allowed.

6. Thus, in the light of aforesaid observations the

reference is dismissed.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 393-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ vks-,u-

th-lh- fyfeVsM vkSj nwljksa ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn

ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 306@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 23-02-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30012@3@2000&vkbZvkj (,e)º

uohu diwj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 24th February, 2016

S.O. 393.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 306/

2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. O.N.G.C. Ltd.and others and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 23.02.2016.

[No. L-30012/3/2000-IR (M)]

NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present….

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 3rd February, 2016

880

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 27, 2016/PHALGUNA 8, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Reference: (CGITA) No. 306/2004

Reference : (ITC) No. 65/2000

1. The Group General Manager (P),

ONGC Ltd.,

Chandkheda,

Ahmedabad

2. M/s. Industrial Security Services,

Parichay Shopping Centre,

Near ‘D’ Cabin,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

3. M/s. Parishram Labour co-op Society Ltd.,

10, Sahjanand Shopping Centre,

Shahibaug,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) ….First Party

Vs.

Their Workmen

through the secretary,

Gujarat Petroleum Employees Union,

434/46. Gandhivas Naka, Gujarat Stadium Road,

Sabarmati

Ahmedabad-380001 ….Second Party

For the First Party : Sh. K.V. Gadhia, Advocate-

For the Second Party : Kum Santoshben, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L- 30012/3/2000-

IR(M) dated 31.05.2000 referred the dispute for adjudication

to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect

of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of Gujarat Petroleum

Employees Union, to declare that the arrangement of

contract in which Shri Vishnubhai Kashiram Prajapati

was employed is ‘Sham and bogus’ and the

termination of the employee concerned w.e.f.

17.05.1999 is legal and justified and if so, whether the

workman concerned is entitled for reinstatement as

Khalasi in ONGC, Ahmedabad project with full back

wages and other relief at par with the regular

employee of ONGC Ahmedabad Project?”

2. This reference dates back to 31.05.2000. Both the

parties put in their appearance in the case and also filed the

vakalatnama of their counsels. Second party submitted

statement of claim (Ext.6) and first party submitted written

statement (Ext.11).

3. Today on 03.02.2016, the learned counsel for the

first party is present but none is responding for second

party. It is also noteworthy that the second party have

been absent since last several years to give evidence to

adduce the evidence despite giving dozens of opportunities

to them. Thus, it appears that second party is not interested

in the proceedings of the reference. Therefore, Tribunal

has no option but to dismiss the reference in default of the

second party.

The reference is dismissed in default of the second

party.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 394-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ vks-,u-

th-lh- fyfeVsM vkSj nwljksa ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn

ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 128@2006) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 23-02-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30011@26@2006&vkbZvkj (,e)º

uohu diwj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 24th February, 2016

S.O. 394.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 128/

2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. O.N.G.C. Ltd.and others and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 23.02.2016.

[No. L-30011/26/2006-IR (M)]

NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present….

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 8th February, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No-128/2006

1. The Group General Manager (P)

ONGC Ltd.,

Ankleshwar Project, (Gujarat)

Ankleshwar

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 27] 2016@iQkYxqu 8] 1937

881

2. The Managing Director,

Industrial Security Services,

8, Parichay Shopping Centre,

D’ Cabin, Sabarmati,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) -380001

3. M/s. Central Industrial Security Services

Near Hawa Mahal,

Opp. GIDC ST Depot,

(Gujarat) Ankleshwar-393010

4. The Group General Manager,

ONGC Ltd., Ahmedabad Project,

Chandkheda, 5^th Floor,

Avani Bhavan

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

5. M/s. Yashdeep & Company,

F-32, Raviraj Complex, Near Valia Chowkdi,

Ankleshwar ...First Party

Vs.

Their Workmen

Through the general Secretary,

Gujarat Employees Union Naka,

Gujarat Stadium Circle, Sabarmati,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)-380005 ...Second Party

For the First Party:

For the Second Party:

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour ,New

Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L- 30011/26/2006-

IR(M) dated 18.05.2006 referred the dispute for adjudication

to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect

of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of Gujarat Petroleum

Employees Union for absorption of S/Sh Arvind

Kumar Singh & 21 others (as per the list attached),

working as contract labour, by the ONGC Ltd.,

Ahmedabad /Ankleshwar is legal and justified? If

so, what relief the workers are entitled to and from

which date?”

2. This reference dates back to 18.05.2006. All the

parties were served. Gujarat Petroleum Employees Union,

Ahmedabad through its general secretary moved an

application (Ext.14, 15, 16, & 17) for withdrawal on behalf of

four employees. Later, they also not turned up. Neither of

the parties filed their statement of claim and written

statement. Thus, it appears that second party is not

interested in the proceedings of the reference. Therefore,

Tribunal has no option but to dismiss the reference in

default of the second party.

The reference is dismissed in default of the second

party.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 iQjojh] 2016

dk-vk- 395-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ dkaMyk

iksVZ VªLV vkSj nwljksa ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la- 968@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 23-02-2016 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&37011@8@1993&vkbZvkj (,e)º

uohu diwj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 24th February, 2016

S.O. 395.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 968/

2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Kandla Port Trust and others and

their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 23.02.2016.

[No. L-37011/8/1993-IR (M)]

NAVEEN KAPOOR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 2nd February, 2016

Reference: (CGITA) No. 968/2004

Reference: (ITC) No. 18/1994

The Secretary,

Kandla Port Trust,

A.O. Building,

Gandhidham (Kutch) ...First Party

Vs.

Their Workmen,

through the Secretary,

Transport & Dock workers Union, Kandla,

21, Yogesh Building, Plot No. 586,

12-C, Gandhidham,

Kutch-370201 ...Second Party

For the First Party : Sh. K.V. Gadhia, Advocate

For the Second Party : Sh. N.H. Rathod, Advocate

882

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 27, 2016/PHALGUNA 8, 1937

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour ,New

Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L- 37011/8/93-

IR(Misc.) dated 23.04.1994 referred the dispute for

adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot (Gujarat) in

respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Kandla

Port Trust, Gandhidham in not allowing annual

increment to Shri Motilal Ratansi and other 9

employees of Mechanical Department as listed in

Annexure ‘A’ for the period from 1.9.73 to 1.9.77 is

justified? If not, to what relief the workman are

entitled?”

2. This reference dates back to 23.04.1994. Both the

parties are served. Second party submitted his statement

of claim (Ext.2) on 09.08.1994 and first party also submitted

his written statement (Ext.11) on 23.03.2004. Now on

02.02.2016 , Advocate Sh. N.H. Rathod for the first party

submitted an application (Ext.18) stating that in the same

subject-matter another reference No. 969/2004 is also

pending. Therefore, in the said circumstances, the second

party does not press the reference No. 968/2004 and

unconditionally withdraw the reference No. 969/2004.

3. The application (Ext.18) moved by the second party

for withdrawal/dismissal of the reference No. 968/2004 is

allowed.

Order is passed accordingly.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064

and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.